Go to Ultimatecarpage.com

Go Back   Ultimatecarpage.com forums > Automotive forums > Technical forums


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10-29-2011, 12:53 PM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Quote:
the principles that you want to apply should also be applicable to a small car, and should not depend upon heavy vehicles to work. This is not a criticism of your ideas for energy recovery, just a suggestion that the presentation of your ideas should not depend upon them being applied to large or heavy vehicles.
The attached table might be informative to show the involved factors of the light/small vehicles in my plan, compared to heavy/large vehicles.
Quote:
As for the production of a vacuum in the solenoid tubes, this should be easily possible, and should not require an on-board vacuum pump. I envision the solenoids being sealed, possibly by welding or heat-sealing, depending upon the choice of material. I know from experience that a quite high vacuum will persist for several years, assuming the right materials, and method of sealing. Once sealed, they should be maintenance-free for quite a long time.
Much work can be done about the solenoids. Those suggested rails that confine the sliding magnets could be made by long carbon nanotubes (18.5 cm long, reported in 2009). The superconductivity property of carbon nanotubes is also required. Inspired by the magnetic levitation, because of superconductivity, like this image:
It is possible to make the solenoids very efficient. All of such solutions are achievable within the realm of current technology; for example, read these articles:



Moreover, if a suitable vacuum could be built inside the solenoids, that would be highly effective. As an instance, the highest recorded speed of a magnetic levitation train is 581 km/h, achieved in Japan, but the lack of air resistance could permit vacuum tube trains to use little power and to move at extremely high speeds, up to 6400–8000 km/h. To compare these two cases, see the below articles:


Therefore, if we combine the technologies of magnetism and vacuum, I estimate the efficiency of +95% for the solenoids mechanism.
As you see, I'm not talking about the futuristic ideas, my plan works for today, but the expenses factor has the main role.
Attached Images
File Type: gif Table for Plan.gif (15.8 KB, 3 views)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2011, 01:15 AM
MilesR MilesR is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
I will provide a couple of responses to your table. Firstly, small cars are quite capable of long journeys. I drove my 660cc kei-car about 1,500km over a couple of days, part of the way across Australia, and enjoyed it more than any of the larger cars that I have driven comparable distances. I am aware that this makes me weird, rather than right, so I will not attach any great importance to the argument, except for one point. To categorise a small car as incapable for long distances is incorrect, and perhaps "more or less suited" would be more appropriate. This is a minor point of wording and presentation.

More importantly, while your table is correct in stating that there is probably less potential for energy recovery, by any method, from a small car, it is also misleading as it does not acknowledge that there is less need for energy recovery in a small car, as a small car requires less energy in the first place. I would expect that the benefit of energy recovery methods to a small car would be pretty much equivalent to a big car, if the benefit is measured in proportional units, such as percentages, rather than absolute units, like Joules or Watts. Absolute units will always show an increased potential for energy recovery from heavier objects, but only because absolutely more energy has been invested in moving them.

Similarly, the benefit from each single human input into a small car is likely to be proportionally higher than for a large car, but the number of contributors is likely to be smaller. I would not conclude that there is less potential for the fitment of such devices in a small car. Assuming that an internal treadmill is out of the question for any practical car, I think that a small car would be likely to have space for other devices, such as pedals or crank handles. It would just depend upon clever packaging. Again, I would expect that small and large cars are likely to benefit to broadly similar extents from such efforts.

I have come across the concepts of magnetic bearings, magnetic levitation, and superconducting magnets, and am fairly familiar with them. Considering that a conventional rotary electric motor/generator can have an efficiency (from memory) between 80% and 90%, depending upon design and construction quality, I could easily believe that 95% is possible, given the highest technologies and a high-quality construction. As you also point out, these technologies all exist, and are not science-fiction. However, there is a difference between the technologies being real, and being useful.

Superconducting is lovely, but there is still development to be done. Even the highest-temperature superconductors still require cryogenic cooling to maintain superconductivity. This is one of the biggest single costs in running a superconducting Maglev, and is not likely to become affordable or practical for mass-produced cars, any time soon, as you say. Any efficiency improvement would entail additional insulation, to preserve the cryogenic fluid for as long as possible, a system to contain the fluid, and possibly a reserve tank to keep the system topped up, not to mention the energy invested in making the cryogenic fluid.

On the face of it, it seems probable that existing superconductors will not be of benefit to the solenoid system, particularly for the sake of such a small percentage benefit, and that such technology will become feasible only with technological advances such as room-temperature superconductors, which are, for now, still science fiction. Nanotubes suffer from a similar problem - they exist, and we are getting better at handling them, but they still have yet to be turned into anything useful. Again, the possible benefit of nanotubes to the solenoid is likely to be very small. I would be more interested to discover their potential for integration into the structure of the car, again to reduce weight, or improve safety without increasing weight.

The bright side of this picture is that we have no theoretical reason to believe that these technologies cannot be made useful. Theory seems to allow the existence of room-temperature superconductors, and likewise, nanotubes should, in theory, be applicable to structural uses, and not only in cars. Energetic savings of several percent could be made in electricity distribution networks (which would be an enormous absolute amount of energy saving). Maglev trains could have vastly reduced operating costs and energy usage. Nanotube structures may make vehicles of every sort much lighter and more efficient - imagine being able to reduce the weight of an airliner's airframe by a quarter. There are other beneficial technologies under development, such as cheap, efficient solar panels, as discussed. These are the developments and technologies that give me hope that the future will not only be more sustainable, but also more awesome, than the past.

Last edited by MilesR; 11-02-2011 at 01:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-06-2011, 06:31 AM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Quote:
Firstly, small cars are quite capable of long journeys. ... To categorise a small car as incapable for long distances is incorrect, and perhaps "more or less suited" would be more appropriate.
After preparing the table, I realized that I should be flexible about the small cars, in particular the impact of the grid power and bio-force power on them get enhanced (not much, but to some extent) compared to large cars. If I want to refuse imposing changes to the car body, maybe the remaining options would be something like a
:
Anyway, I accept your remark on performing such a plan on small cars, then generalize it to the large cars, though I see no disaster on going reversely. Recently, I liked the specifications of these cars: KTM X-Bow:
Ariel Atom Mugen:
& BAC Mono (
, Link2, Link3):
For example, Ariel Atom Mugen seems fit for solenoid-embedding.
Quote:
it is also misleading as it does not acknowledge that there is less need for energy recovery in a small car, as a small car requires less energy in the first place.
The row #3 is about that. "Need to Power" for small/large cars.
Quote:
Similarly, the benefit from each single human input into a small car is likely to be proportionally higher than for a large car, but the number of contributors is likely to be smaller. I would not conclude that there is less potential for the fitment of such devices in a small car.
Agreed.
Quote:
Assuming that an internal treadmill is out of the question for any practical car, I think that a small car would be likely to have space for other devices, such as pedals or crank handles. It would just depend upon clever packaging. Again, I would expect that small and large cars are likely to benefit to broadly similar extents from such efforts.
Agreed. By the way, I am thinking an external treadmill would be very useful for a small car. If the members of a family would run on a home-based treadmill for ten minutes one by one daily, e.g., 5 minutes at morning & 5 minutes at night; and possibly have an animal to do more running, the electric output for a small car would be remarkable IMO.
Quote:
I could easily believe that 95% is possible, given the highest technologies and a high-quality construction.
I'm glad to hear that. You know, accepting the amplifying results from the solenoids are impossible was painful to me. I knew my enemy is this:

See also this:
Drag (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, I have not accepted a full failure and am seeking some ways to cope with that. Although, that caused me to consider a smaller compressed-air propulsion system. At the biggest estimations, maybe a V4 system of 0.8L-1.2L would be good as a compressed-air approach. If it could propel the vehicle for 2-8 km distance with normal speeds, to give the time to the batteries to come out of a critical situation, that would be enough & realistic. Besides, the overall weight of that system must be lower than 80 kg.
Quote:
These are the developments and technologies that give me hope that the future will not only be more sustainable, but also more awesome, than the past.
Agreed. I guess applying the said technologies would be interesting for the automobile industry. We'd have freer hands to do engineering on the cars, compared to trains. I hope to be able to present more data about this in next posts.
This is a straightforward infograph on the fuel efficiency in the U.S:
http://www1.msistatic.com/MBImages/info/altfuel.jpg
I didn't put the picture in here, because it's too big sized, but I invite you to see that carefully. I ran into it via this address, originally from another address.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-07-2011, 11:02 AM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Two examples showing my idea of using wind turbines for the car could be useful:
1.
Quote:
Without power, nothing works. Plugs for 230-volt AC and 12-volt DC are located throughout the camper. The base power comes from a bank of Sunshine Dry Fit Gel batteries. The battery bank is charged on the road by dual alternators and four SunWare 12V/545W solar panels, which can be walked on. When in camp, a 12V/350W wind generator can supplement the solar panels. A Freedom Heart Interface (Xantrex) inverter/converter supplies 220-volt AC and quickly recharges the batteries when they are plugged into shore power, which is infrequently. When needed, a SDMO Aliize 3000 generator slides out from an insulated side compartment.
Source: TruckTrend - Road Tests - Unleash Your Explorer: ALU-Star Expedition Camper
2.
Quote:
The Eco Slim's two electric motors are powered by a bank of 90 lead acid batteries. Those batteries are in turn charged by two onboard wind turbines, an array of 40 deck-mounted monocrystalline solar panels, and/or a diesel-electric thermal generator. An electronic management system regulates these different power sources, and is accessed via two screens (one of them a touchscreen) built into the catamaran's control panel. In order to operate autonomously, both the electronic management system and the navigation instruments are powered by a dedicated lead acid battery and a 2 kW hydrogen fuel cell.
Source: Europes largest ecological catamaran sets sail
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-08-2011, 12:42 AM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Another good news to recover a part of the consumed energy. This is about the electricity caused by the noise and thermoacoustic effects in
. However, this method is minor and my raw estimation is it could yield about 200 Watts output. No matter what, wind noise is present in all of the cars, interior or exterior of the body, so why should we let it be wasted?
Quote:
the only drawback seems to be a little more wind noise at 60-70 than we'd have expected – and we'll have to test other 508s to be sure that's endemic to the model. In any case, tyre and mechanical noises are well suppressed.
Source: Peugeot 508 2.0 HDi - Road Test First Drive - Autocar.co.uk

Quote:
The ride is comfortable at high speeds and acceptable on rougher city roads at suburban speed limits, although tyre and suspension noise can intrude into the cabin over coarser surfaces.
Source: Peugeot 508 Allure HDi
Also, search for the word "noise", in this page:
Peugeot road tests | Peugeot consumer reviews
********
Maybe we'd need to test the car in a wind tunnel to identify the noisy points to extract electricity out of them:
Several related & interesting links:
Products
Lucas Adaptive Wall Wind Tunnel
Bodies immersed in fluids - Car in wind tunnel
The in UntertΓΌrkheim | Mercedes-Benz Passion eBlog
Aerodynamics, Wind Tunnel, Water tow tank, Rolling road, High Speed Digital Camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Sh...ve_Wind_Tunnel
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-08-2011, 12:45 AM
MilesR MilesR is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
Yes. As a stationary device for recharging batteries, wind turbines will gather their energy from the movement of the air. The problem only arises if they are used while the vehicle is mobile, as they then gather energy from the movement of the vehicle through the air, increasing the energy needed to propel the vehicle. That is when they are self-defeating. I believe that there are companies, in the UK at least, which sell small turbines that can be mounted on a house roof, much like a weather vane, and generate about 0.5kW of power, in a good wind. The power is delivered to the house simply by plugging the turbine into a power point, where it feeds the power grid, reducing the electricity bill for the house. I am not sure whether they have been a commercial or regulatory success, as I have not heard any more news about them for a few years. A product of about that size and design would be ideal for charging a car while it is stationary. One of those would generate more power at night than a solar panel, as long as there is a bit of wind available.

The boat is a bit more of a mystery to me, but I can see the turbines helping under certain circumstances. For example, they could gather energy from a cross-wind, without increasing the forward aerodynamic drag of the vessel much. In addition, a greater source of drag for a boat is the water that it floats in. It is possible that wind turbines may offer a method for harvesting energy when water current and wind directions are not the same. A strong current pushing the boat forward into a headwind may give some potential benefit, or a cross-current and a cross-wind may be used to partially cancel each other, while generating power. I suppose that would be more or less equivalent to the way that a sail boat works. The same general principle remains, though. When the motors push the boat through the air and water at the same speed, the turbines cannot generate more power than that which is used to overcome their aerodynamic drag. Hence I can only imagine them working when the boat is stationary or subject to the above conditions. Unfortunately for road users, the road does not have currents that push the car forwards. It would be nice if they did, though.

I am sorry to be such a disappointment about the solenoid power amplifying idea. I don't mean to seem pessimistic or overly critical. I was just applying what I know to the idea, and giving my best assessment of it. I like the creativity that went into it, and it is the sort of idea that can stimulate other ideas, or variations that could work. After that discussion, I am now curious to find out whether superconducting materials could increase the power density of linear electric motors sufficiently that a realistically light-weight device could provide sufficient force to act as a suspension damper, in place of a hydraulic device. I had not previously thought about using superconducting materials for that purpose. I know that a conventional linear electric motor works for that purpose, as it has been applied to an energy-recovering bicycle. It is only limited by the performance capabilities of the designs and materials used.

Don't stop thinking about those things. I have found that there are some ideas or devices that are not used because they are impossible, or because they have problems, but also that there are other, sometime quite simple ideas, that are not used simply because no-one has thought of them. Years ago, I was thinking about ways of recovering energy from a car's engine cooling system, by using the hot coolant water to drive a steam turbine. This seemed really simple, and I assumed that it was not used because there was something wrong with the idea. As it was, about five years later, BMW announced that they had achieved a 15% improvement in efficiency by recovering energy, albeit from the heat of the exhaust system, using a steam turbine attached to the crankshaft. That is one of several cases where I assumed that my idea must be flawed, only to find that someone else had made it work, either before I had thought of it, or several years after.

Last edited by MilesR; 11-08-2011 at 12:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-08-2011, 11:37 AM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
An amazing point about the Chevrolet Miray Concept that drew my attention:

Quote:
The concept's powertrain consists of two front-mounted electric motors, each producing 15 kW (20 bhp / 20 PS) of power for the front axle, coupled with a 1.5 liter four-cylinder turbocharged petrol unit mounted mid-rear which drives the back wheels. Current for the electric motors comes from a 1.6 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that is recharged through regenerative braking.
From: Chevrolet Miray concept revealed in Korea
Quote:
Two 15-kilowatt (20-horsepower) motors power the MiRay through the front axle in urban and low-speed driving. For higher speeds or when the 1.6-kilowatt-hour battery is depleted, a turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine kicks in to drive the rear wheels through a dual-clutch gearbox, making this a "through-the-road" hybrid.
From: Chevy MiRay: Hybrid 'Muscle Car Of The Future' Concept
********
Look at the capacity of the battery again: 1.6 kwh! or 1600 watts-hour! This amount is quite achievable by my suggested methods, even the hydraulic shock absorbers are enough to gain that number. If Chevy Miray uses the supercapacitors instead of lithium batteries, the action of depleting is almost avoidable, I guess.
********
Four other good EVs & HEVs:
1. Suzuki Premiers Micro-hybrid Kizashi EcoCharge Concept: #evworld (air-cooled battery)
Suzuki Media - Auto - SUZUKI REVEALS KIZASHI ECOCHARGE CONCEPT AT 2011 NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW
2. Kia Motors β€˜Ray’ Plug-in Hybrid concept debuts in Chicago (considerable vehicle range)
3. Buick Envision concept unveiled (it has an active damping electromagnetic suspension with the energy-recycle function)
2012 Buick Envision Concept | CoverCars.com
Buick Envision SUV Concept Makes Global Debut
4. Luxgen shows Neora EV concept (quick charging, long range)
Luxgen Neora EV Sport Sedan Concept Unveiled at Shanghai Auto Show
Luxgen Neora EV Concept Shown At Shanghai | Reviews | Prices | Australian specifications
*
P.S.: I just saw your new post, I'll reply as soon as possible to that.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-08-2011, 11:34 PM
MilesR MilesR is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
Yes, that Miray's battery capacity is not much, but look at the output of the motors. Even if they were only running at part load, they could draw 10-15kW between them. That would drain a battery of that size in about 5-10 minutes. If you used the full power of the motors, you would empty the battery in only about 3 minutes. That would give it a driving range, I would estimate, of only about 5-10km under battery power. By comparison, the energy recovery suspension is reported to deliver about 800W. Even with improvements, assuming that it could deliver 1.6kW, it would take an hour to generate the 1.6kWh of energy stored by the battery, not the 5-10 minutes that the battery lasts for. It would help to the tune of about 10%, but it would not generate power as fast as the car uses it.

It is also worth noting that the rapid charging figures, given for purely electric or plug-in-hybrid vehicles, do not apply outside specialist charging stations. You could not plug in an electric car at home, and have it charged in one hour. Take the Luxgen, for example. One of those reports specifies that it has a 48kWh battery (probably two Nissan Leaf batteries stuck together). An Australian domestic power point will deliver 2,400W, or 2.4kW, while a British-pattern socket will deliver 3kW. Thus, a domestic power point would take 15-20 hours to deliver the 48kWh of energy contained in that battery. If you drove 300-400km in one day, you would not be able to recharge it completely before the next morning, even if it is plugged in all night.

Any lithium-based or NiMH rechargeable battery can be charged in 1-2 hours, just as a mobile telephone or laptop computer can be, but only if the power supply is adequate, and the battery is not allowed to overheat. In the case of the Luxgen, that rate of charge would be possible with a power supply delivering probably 40-50kW, which would mean a huge electric current, and hence the specialised charging station. The other necessary development is the cooling system for the battery. If you have ever felt a normal battery on a 1-hour charge cycle, you will know that it gets quite hot. A battery the size of an electric car battery would not only get hot, but the heat would struggle to escape from a block of cells that large. Overheating has been the direct or indirect cause of many battery fires and failures. This is the main technical challenge of designing EV batteries, but it is one that car designers are used to, and have accommodated in their designs.

As for the range of the Kia, that is the result of it being a hybrid, and being able to depend upon its petrol tank to keep it going. Under battery power alone it will only cover 80km, although that is quite impressive for a car carrying a petrol drive system, too. I must also admit that the design looks quite sensible - efficient, with energy savings made wherever possible, and a hybrid system that is serious enough to deliver impressive economy. Don't believe the 1.4L/100km claim, though. That depends upon the battery being charged at a power point before the drive, and being empty at the end of the drive, so does not represent the overall energy usage. Normal hybrid operation gives a claimed 3.6L/100km, which is pretty comparable to a Prius. For a petrol car that is great, but less spectacular than they try to make it look. The next unknown is how those claimed specifications would translate into a real production model under real driving conditions.

There are no technical details given for the Buick's electromagnetic suspension system, but based on the name, it sounds like a system that uses a hybrid of your solenoids and my linear electric motors to provide suspension, and to recover energy. That is encouraging. Between the two of us, we may have been right.

It is reassuring to see these developments being made by so many different manufacturers. It suggests that the perceived culture and expectations of the global new car market have changed for the better.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-09-2011, 04:37 AM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Quote:
I like the creativity that went into it, and it is the sort of idea that can stimulate other ideas, or variations that could work. After that discussion, I am now curious to find out whether superconducting materials could increase the power density of linear electric motors sufficiently that a realistically light-weight device could provide sufficient force to act as a suspension damper, in place of a hydraulic device. I had not previously thought about using superconducting materials for that purpose.
Indeed, there are interesting possibilities for this plan. Recently, I found this exciting video, watching it might be cool to you:
Quantum Levitation, ASTC 2011, Superconductivity Group, School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University
Quote:
I have found that there are some ideas or devices that are not used because they are impossible, or because they have problems, but also that there are other, sometime quite simple ideas, that are not used simply because no-one has thought of them.
Agreed. As it is observed, there is no magical idea in my plan, the principle of conservation of energy imposes severe limitations on any engineering plan. Besides, as an example, the battery industry does not like the windup devices. Anyhow, it's too late to be confined by old methods of managing the energy consumption, our poor planet needs terribly good changes, unless … let me not think about that …
Quote:
Years ago, I was thinking about ways of recovering energy from a car's engine cooling system, by using the hot coolant water to drive a steam turbine. This seemed really simple, and I assumed that it was not used because there was something wrong with the idea. As it was, about five years later, BMW announced that they had achieved a 15% improvement in efficiency by recovering energy, albeit from the heat of the exhaust system, using a steam turbine attached to the crankshaft. That is one of several cases where I assumed that my idea must be flawed, only to find that someone else had made it work, either before I had thought of it, or several years after.
It's good that you've had such kind of ideas. Also, I'm glad to discuss with someone similar to my type and I invite others to join us if they have something significant to say.
If I were in your shoes, the fact that BMW has presented something similar to my idea, would have caused much more self-confidence in me for having an engineering vision.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-09-2011, 06:13 AM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Quote:
By comparison, the energy recovery suspension is reported to deliver about 800W. Even with improvements, assuming that it could deliver 1.6kW, it would take an hour to generate the 1.6kWh of energy stored by the battery, not the 5-10 minutes that the battery lasts for. It would help to the tune of about 10%, but it would not generate power as fast as the car uses it.
I expect more power from the hydraulic shock absorbers. Let's take a look again:
… They began by creating a simple hydraulic system, in which the shock absorber's piston pumps fluid to drive a hydraulic motor and a miniature electric-motor generator. The team's first prototype generated a total of 800 watts of continuous power with four shocks, and up to five kilowatts — about seven times as much as a typical car alternator produces — over nasty off-road terrain. They estimate that their next version could double the generating capacity, boosting fuel mileage on paved roads by 2 to 5 percent in commercial trucks and 6 percent in military vehicles, which when fully armored can slurp diesel at a dispiriting four to eight miles per gallon. Hybrids, which can store GenShock electricity in their batteries, would gain the most — up to 10 percent …
Please notice the article backs more than two years ago and I expect more improvements; also I've suggested these shock absorbers could be equipped with the piezoelectric materials as well. On the other hand, as I've mentioned in page 31:
… Shock absorbers act very strongly and elastically to reach the solenoid electricity to the highest level on rugged and mountainous roads (where fuel consumption in the corresponding ICE vehicles grows sharply). Besides the car would use the mentioned shock absorbers to provide the passengers' comfort to keep a smooth ride of the seats by a separate suspension system, that isolate the passenger seats from effects due to rough terrain [102]. However, the shock absorbers should shake the car body most of the time [103] to increase the solenoids electricity,…
As you see, a ready suspension system can do the mission well, not perfectly but pretty satisfying. So I wonder why did Chevrolet Miray suffice to such weak power and short ranges?

Quote:
It is also worth noting that the rapid charging figures, given for purely electric or plug-in-hybrid vehicles, do not apply outside specialist charging stations. You could not plug in an electric car at home, and have it charged in one hour. Take the Luxgen, for example. One of those reports specifies that it has a 48kWh battery (probably two Nissan Leaf batteries stuck together). An Australian domestic power point will deliver 2,400W, or 2.4kW, while a British-pattern socket will deliver 3kW. Thus, a domestic power point would take 15-20 hours to deliver the 48kWh of energy contained in that battery. If you drove 300-400km in one day, you would not be able to recharge it completely before the next morning, even if it is plugged in all night.
Agreed.
Quote:
The other necessary development is the cooling system for the battery. If you have ever felt a normal battery on a 1-hour charge cycle, you will know that it gets quite hot. A battery the size of an electric car battery would not only get hot, but the heat would struggle to escape from a block of cells that large. Overheating has been the direct or indirect cause of many battery fires and failures. This is the main technical challenge of designing EV batteries, but it is one that car designers are used to, and have accommodated in their designs.
I care about the batteries so much, because they are sensitive as an infant, and unfortunately they bring many environmental concerns too, like being toxic. Now, I hope people find out why I insist the compressed-air propulsion, supercapacitors, and hydraulic hybrid system get involved. The reason is helping the poor batteries.
Quote:
As for the range of the Kia, that is the result of it being a hybrid, and being able to depend upon its petrol tank to keep it going. Under battery power alone it will only cover 80km, although that is quite impressive for a car carrying a petrol drive system, too. I must also admit that the design looks quite sensible - efficient, with energy savings made wherever possible, and a hybrid system that is serious enough to deliver impressive economy. Don't believe the 1.4L/100km claim, though. That depends upon the battery being charged at a power point before the drive, and being empty at the end of the drive, so does not represent the overall energy usage. Normal hybrid operation gives a claimed 3.6L/100km, which is pretty comparable to a Prius. For a petrol car that is great, but less spectacular than they try to make it look.
Yeah, in fact the traditional hybrid cars are good, but I feel the situation of the earth is so critical that we have to go very beyond them. Making 2 million USD is great, but if your debt is 2 billion USD, that money won't help you much. Mankind's damage to the environment is so high that it requires greater solutions to fix it …
Quote:
There are no technical details given for the Buick's electromagnetic suspension system, but based on the name, it sounds like a system that uses a hybrid of your solenoids and my linear electric motors to provide suspension, and to recover energy. That is encouraging. Between the two of us, we may have been right.
I wish I knew about the used mechanism of suspension system for 2012 Buick Envision Concept. Maybe the above wiki articles I cited above would give some clues:


I'm really curious to know how solenoids or linear electric motors have been applied in their system …
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-10-2011, 12:32 AM
MilesR MilesR is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
Yes, indeed. The BMW thing, among other similar cases, gave me a bit of confidence in my technical competence. It was also satisfying to see something that I had thought was a good idea, was being used. It was just a bit irritating to think that I may have thought of it before them, and had not made the most of it. Inaction has long been a weakness of mine.

The suspension energy recovery system is capable of delivering that much power, but only over terrain where suspension displacements and loadings are large. The on-road energy recovery may have room for improvement (hence I allowed a doubling of the reported on-road output), but improvements will be limited to increasing the efficiency of the system. Ultimately the loads and displacements of the suspension are limited, and therefore the energy that can be recovered from them will be limited, too. Hence, I would not expect 5kW in normal road use. Similarly, if more energy could be recovered, it would only be because the motor is having to generate more power to drive the suspension over the bumps, so again, it would be impossible to recover more energy from the suspension than the motor is drawing from its stores. There is room for improvement, but the first law of thermodynamics still has its way.

There are two or three reasons why the Miray has that battery. The first is packaging. It is a sports car, and a large battery would make it heavy, and be difficult to fit in. The Tesla roadster is heavier and has worse handling than the Lotus Elise, with which it shares its platform and many components, due to the 450kg of batteries it carries. Another reason is that, if it is to be a production model, a smaller battery will help to keep costs down. Finally, extra battery capacity may not help much. A battery 10 times larger would give a correspondingly greater electric range, but that electric range would still be dwarfed by the range available from the petrol motor.

The larger battery may also not be of great benefit to energy recovery. Assuming the car weighs 1,500kg, and has a top speed of about 200km/h, it will have at most about 0.64kWh of kinetic energy that can be recovered, from top speed. A similar amount would be needed to reach this speed, neglecting various drag losses. Thus, reaching top speed would not drain the battery completely, and maximum possible energy recovery will not completely charge the battery. Therefore, energy recovery and hybrid petrol economy can be pretty much optimised without carrying/paying for a large battery. The small battery and relatively low output motors make this a mild hybrid, like Honda and Lexus' hybrids tend to be, as opposed to a full hybrid like the Prius, or a plug-in hybrid, that is designed to operate almost as a fully electric car, like the Kia Ray concept. Besides, GM can claim that unspectacular hybrid fuel consumption is only to be expected when they are building the "Muscle-car of the future". They are selling sophisticated performance more so than economy, hence the press release emphasises the turbo, the double-clutch sequential gearbox, the big wheels, etc., and not the fuel use.

Personally, I am not a fan of conventional hybrids, in general. That is the reason that I am a bit reluctant to admit that I like the general design of the Kia. The reason is that hybrids seem to be almost entirely a gesture, as opposed to a solution, and they seek to change as little as possible. As I see it, the only real solutions will be those that change attitudes. As I said, the market seems to be demanding progress, which is good, but they also seem to be satisfied with gimmicks instead of solutions. The problem with attitudes is that people in the developed world do not want to sacrifice their lifestyles and habits for the sake of environmentalism, while people in the under-developed countries aspire to the prestige of what the developed world has. Hence, hybrids sell because they are comparable to normal cars - fast, smooth, quiet, spacious, well equipped and so on, while giving the impression of responsibility.

Hybrids also seem to avoid simple ways to make real progress. So far, I don't think anyone has put a diesel hybrid into production, for example, although Kia is working on it. A diesel engine is easily the ICE best suited to hybrid use, with a thermodynamic efficiency that is far better than any other common ICE, and a narrow speed range and low power-to-weight ratio that is not so good for conventional performance cars, but is ideal as a constant-speed, constant-output, long lasting and efficient electric generator. The failure to use such technologies indicates to me that current hybrids are mainly a marketing exercise.

What I would like to see is a return to cars as they were originally intended - a way to get from one place to another faster than a horse, or walking, and more safely than a motorcycle. Transport does not require low levels of noise, vibration and harshness, 0-100km/h in 6 seconds, heated and massaging seats, ferro-magnetic particle meditated electronic damping control, a 19 speaker hard-drive audio system, or a large monitor in the steering wheel, so the driver can watch television instead of the road in front (2011 Subaru Advanced Tourer Concept - Images, Specifications and Information, for that last one). While I do not object to such things being developed for luxury or performance cars, normal cars do not need to aspire to the same ideal.

This is why I love kei cars. They are generally a bit noisier, bouncier, cheaper, and in some cases simpler, than normal cars. However, they are inherently efficient, can be parked in places that normal cars do not fit, and are capable of carrying four people much faster than the speed limit allows. Thus they do what a car should, cheaply, easily and efficiently. For example, the equivalent of about US$10,200 will get you four seats and a boot that travels on 3.4L/100km of normal petrol here. Note that this consumption is better than the Kia Ray Hybrid concept, it has the same number of seats (albeit probably a smaller boot), and would be vastly cheaper. The Daihatsu also uses no particularly advanced technology - small energy recovery, via the alternator and a normal lead acid battery, automatic engine stop-start system, and lighter weight, lower drag, and generally optimised mechanical bits and pieces. If a similarly refined 660cc turbo-diesel engine were developed (Japan, among other places, officially discourages diesel engines in private cars), it could run at an almost constant speed due to the CVT, deliver similar performance, and would probably reduce fuel use to about 2.5L/100km, still without using a hybrid system. The low fuel use of this vehicle would make bio-ethanol and bio-diesel more viable energy sources for transport, simply based on the volumes needed, and would make this car well-suited to drive systems with low power storage density, such as electric, simply because it needs little energy to drive it. For that matter, take a look at these: http://www.daihatsu.com/news/2011/1109-2/20111109-2.pdf. Unfortunately, it will be almost another month before full details will be available.

I know that this is not a simple thing to sell, particularly to people who have a culture of big cars and big engines, or to those who aspire to such things as a sign of prestige. This is why hybrids are made the way they are, and also why you presented your ideas in the way that you did. Therefore I unfortunately expect that Daihatsu will not seek to sell this car in markets that it recently abandoned, such as Australia and Europe, nor in America, which is culturally opposed to this kind of car. However, as far as I can tell, the solution to the environmental impact of cars must be to change the accepted normality. People must get accustomed to the idea of not owning one or two cars, where it is reasonable to get by without them. Those who do own cars should get used to a device that gets them from one place to another, rather than a lounge room, complete with cinema system and drinks refrigerator, on wheels. Once these expectations change, fossil fuel use can be reduced by half or more, with no further advances in technology, and possibly eliminated, if technology progresses a bit further.

Wow. That was long.

Last edited by MilesR; 11-10-2011 at 01:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-10-2011, 01:52 PM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Quote:
Inaction has long been a weakness of mine.
Just like me.
Quote:
The suspension energy recovery system is capable of delivering that much power, but only over terrain where suspension displacements and loadings are large. The on-road energy recovery may have room for improvement (hence I allowed a doubling of the reported on-road output), but improvements will be limited to increasing the efficiency of the system. Ultimately the loads and displacements of the suspension are limited, and therefore the energy that can be recovered from them will be limited, too. Hence, I would not expect 5kW in normal road use. Similarly, if more energy could be recovered, it would only be because the motor is having to generate more power to drive the suspension over the bumps, so again, it would be impossible to recover more energy from the suspension than the motor is drawing from its stores. There is room for improvement, but the first law of thermodynamics still has its way.
It sounds correct, but I want to see related virtual simulations and actual experiments for this item. I hope the behavior of the internal fluid would show good efficiencies.
Quote:
There are two or three reasons why the Miray has that battery. The first is packaging. It is a sports car, and a large battery would make it heavy, and be difficult to fit in. The Tesla roadster is heavier and has worse handling than the Lotus Elise, with which it shares its platform and many components, due to the 450kg of batteries it carries. Another reason is that, if it is to be a production model, a smaller battery will help to keep costs down. Finally, extra battery capacity may not help much.
Thanks for the information.
Quote:
The larger battery may also not be of great benefit to energy recovery. Assuming the car weighs 1,500kg, and has a top speed of about 200km/h, it will have at most about 0.64kWh of kinetic energy that can be recovered, from top speed. A similar amount would be needed to reach this speed, neglecting various drag losses. Thus, reaching top speed would not drain the battery completely, and maximum possible energy recovery will not completely charge the battery. Therefore, energy recovery and hybrid petrol economy can be pretty much optimised without carrying/paying for a large battery. The small battery and relatively low output motors make this a mild hybrid, like Honda and Lexus' hybrids tend to be, as opposed to a full hybrid like the Prius, or a plug-in hybrid, that is designed to operate almost as a fully electric car, like the Kia Ray concept. Besides, GM can claim that unspectacular hybrid fuel consumption is only to be expected when they are building the "Muscle-car of the future". They are selling sophisticated performance more so than economy, hence the press release emphasises the turbo, the double-clutch sequential gearbox, the big wheels, etc., and not the fuel use.
A reasonable picture …
Quote:
As I see it, the only real solutions will be those that change attitudes. As I said, the market seems to be demanding progress, which is good, but they also seem to be satisfied with gimmicks instead of solutions. The problem with attitudes is that people in the developed world do not want to sacrifice their lifestyles and habits for the sake of environmentalism, while people in the under-developed countries aspire to the prestige of what the developed world has. Hence, hybrids sell because they are comparable to normal cars - fast, smooth, quiet, spacious, well equipped and so on, while giving the impression of responsibility.
Sadly true …
Quote:
Hybrids also seem to avoid simple ways to make real progress. So far, I don't think anyone has put a diesel hybrid into production, for example, although Kia is working on it. A diesel engine is easily the ICE best suited to hybrid use, with a thermodynamic efficiency that is far better than any other common ICE, and a narrow speed range and low power-to-weight ratio that is not so good for conventional performance cars, but is ideal as a constant-speed, constant-output, long lasting and efficient electric generator. The failure to use such technologies indicates to me that current hybrids are mainly a marketing exercise.
These facts make me angry …
Quote:
What I would like to see is a return to cars as they were originally intended - a way to get from one place to another faster than a horse, or walking, and more safely than a motorcycle. Transport does not require low levels of noise, vibration and harshness, 0-100km/h in 6 seconds, heated and massaging seats, ferro-magnetic particle meditated electronic damping control, a 19 speaker hard-drive audio system, or a large monitor in the steering wheel, so the driver can watch television instead of the road in front (2011 Subaru Advanced Tourer Concept - Images, Specifications and Information, for that last one). While I do not object to such things being developed for luxury or performance cars, normal cars do not need to aspire to the same ideal.
I liked this idea of yours. However, if the luxurious tools won't make any negative environmental impact, I see no problem of using them in most of the cars, but the present price of having them is ruining the earth and damaging the energy resources.
Quote:
For example, the equivalent of about US$10,200 will get you four seats and a boot that travels on 3.4L/100km of normal petrol here. Note that this consumption is better than the Kia Ray Hybrid concept, it has the same number of seats (albeit probably a smaller boot), and would be vastly cheaper. The Daihatsu also uses no particularly advanced technology - small energy recovery, via the alternator and a normal lead acid battery, automatic engine stop-start system, and lighter weight, lower drag, and generally optimised mechanical bits and pieces. ... and would probably reduce fuel use to about 2.5L/100km, still without using a hybrid system. The low fuel use of this vehicle would make bio-ethanol and bio-diesel more viable energy sources for transport, simply based on the volumes needed, and would make this car well-suited to drive systems with low power storage density, such as electric, simply because it needs little energy to drive it.
Interesting specifications. Imagine what would happen if I choose this car as a platform to my plan. A sunroof & some other solar panels, regenerative brakes, hydraulic shock absorbers, several supercapacitors, 2-3 pedals or crank handles, also enough number of solenoids and piezoelectric materials, if I could keep its weight increasing below the 100-200 kg, that would be great. Due to possible lack of compressed-air & hydraulic hybrid systems, we could mount two small in-wheel electric motors for the front wheels, and bio-ethanol engine gives power to the rear wheels.
Quote:
I know that this is not a simple thing to sell, particularly to people who have a culture of big cars and big engines, or to those who aspire to such things as a sign of prestige. This is why hybrids are made the way they are, and also why you presented your ideas in the way that you did.
Honestly speaking, I dreamed of a car for off-road and camping purposes. To go long journeys around Iran or probably the world. Also in my eyes, a good car is a vehicle that at least an adult person could sleep inside it, like sleeping in a bed. Moreover, I was (and nearly am) optimistic about the positive environmental features of my proposed car and I asked myself, if this car would become so green, why should I reduce its size and devices?
Quote:
However, as far as I can tell, the solution to the environmental impact of cars must be to change the accepted normality. People must get accustomed to the idea of not owning one or two cars, where it is reasonable to get by without them. Those who do own cars should get used to a device that gets them from one place to another, rather than a lounge room, complete with cinema system and drinks refrigerator, on wheels. Once these expectations change, fossil fuel use can be reduced by half or more, with no further advances in technology, and possibly eliminated, if technology progresses a bit further.
Agreed. To save the earth, people should use the public transportation much more than the past. They can drive by personal cars, but if their carbon emission would be more than of a simple walking, they should offset it; maybe by planting some trees as a serious action.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-10-2011, 04:32 PM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Let me explain more about the piezoelectric potential of the car. We need to search for the components where suffer a serious strain. Fortunately, a significant part of the components of the car could be a candidate for this job, at least in principle. The bearings and tweels' spokes bear much pressure & tension, so it is recommended those should be made of piezoelectric materials, totally or partially. Another item is the skeleton of the car, i.e., chassis, floor and body. We could make them multilayer, instead of a solid structure. Therefore, a reconsideration of making such structures, e.g., chassis, could be assuming it that is composed of numerous small parts, not a single unit. If one likens it to a wall, the old version is cutting a complete wall, while the new approach is building it brick by brick with inserting a thin piezoelectric film between any pair of bricks. By pondering to the simple-looking appearance of the chassis, it could be concluded we are facing a treasury mine, in terms of piezoelectric power.
Therefore, after adopting a chassis like this:
or this:
We can put the desired nanogenerators inside it. This suggestion is according to a new discovery:
First practical nanogenerator produces electricity with pinch of the fingers
Nanogenerators produce electricity by squeezing your fingers together, while you dance -- Engadget
Along with an inspiring image:
Quote:

A nanogenerator, which scientists used to energize an LED light and an LCD display, could power portable electronics in the future using electricity generated by body movement.
Credit: Zhong Lin Wang, Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology
Source: First practical nanogenerator produces electricity with pinch of fingers
This program can be performed horizontally/longitudinally:(The arrow represents a wire connecting the piezoelectric films together)
First: The process of inserting the films between two layers of a segment of the chassis.

Second: The process is complete.

Third: The mentioned segment could have got more than two layers.

A similar process in a vertical/latitudinal manner:
First: Incomplete, to be illustrated better.

Second: The process is done.

*
These pictures and pages of chassis could be inspiring too:
http://www.kitcar.com/dio/chassis.html--with%20prices
http://www.kitcar.com/dio/dio-chassis3b.gif
LMP Engineering - Specifications
Race Car Chassis Diagram 4 Photo 5
http://image.circletrack.com/f/31320...Bdiagram_4.jpg
http://www.gatechlocost.com/wordpres...sieChassis.jpg
Gatech Locost Side
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/au...g_chassis1.jpg
Mercedes Confirms an Electric Gullwing Will Fly | Autopia | Wired.com
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6986401-0-large.jpg
Systems packaged within flat vehicle chassis - General Motors Corporation
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6986401-0-display.jpg
http://www.cscracing.com/chassisboth.html
http://zeocars.com/wp-content/upload...etailed-13.jpg
2013 Mercedes SLS AMG E-Cell, Electric Super Sport Car 2013 Mercedes SLS AMG E-Cell chassis detailed – Car News and Pictures
Top Drag Racing Chassis Builders for Tube Chassis Kits - Jerry Bickel Race Cars
Chassis
********
However, the question is, can we consider that process feasible or economical? The output of the said nanogenerator is desperately low:
Five nanogenerators stacked together produce about 1 micro Ampere output current at 3 volts — about the same voltage generated by two regular AA batteries (about 1.5 volts each).
So we'd require hundreds of millions of them to gain the power in the magnitudes of kilowatts. The situation could be improved if the efficiency of them would be more, like the Rectangular four-quadrant motors with high power density (2.5 watt/cm3) and speed ranging from 10 nm/s to 800 mm/s.; to result in thousands of them for kilowatts powers.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-10-2011, 06:06 PM
mansouryar mansouryar is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Karaj
Quote:
This is why I love kei cars. They are generally a bit noisier, bouncier, cheaper, and in some cases simpler, than normal cars. However, they are inherently efficient, can be parked in places that normal cars do not fit, and are capable of carrying four people much faster than the speed limit allows. Thus they do what a car should, cheaply, easily and efficiently.
So I guess you would like the 2012 Volkswagen Beetle too.
I liked this part as well:
Quote:
The insulating glass blocks 99 percent of UV radiation and 92 percent of heat energy.
Sources:
Volkswagen Unveils
NY Auto Show Preview: 2012 Volkswagen Beetle
Official: 2012 Volkswagen Beetle Pictures And Specs - GOOD CAR BAD CAR
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-11-2011, 01:31 AM
MilesR MilesR is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
The piezo materials currently available certainly have some limitations. On the positive side, material science should make some quite significant improvements in the not-too-distant future. There are a few barriers to their use, though. The ideal way to use them, as you say, would be by integrating them into the structure of the vehicle. I can imagine ways of doing this, using surface coatings, for example. Another might be to sandwich a pre-formed piezo generating layer between two pre-formed sheets of structural metal, then bonding them with epoxy. An advantage of this approach would be that any deformation, anywhere in the entire component, would generate a current. Car platforms tend to have large components, such as floor pans and roofs, pressed from single steel sheets, possibly allowing any deformation of the entire chassis to be exploited

However, there are two significant problems with this approach. The first is cost. If it increases the cost of manufacturing a car significantly, it is unlikely to be marketable, unless it recovers an awful lot of power. The second is strength. Anything that breaks up the structure of a material like steel, will affect its strength and toughness. Manufacturers are already using very high-strength steels, in order to make cars that are competitive in both safety and weight/economy. If these high-technology materials are to be weakened by introducing layers of piezo materials into them, engineering cars for safety may make them frightfully heavy, and engineering them for economy may make them rather unsafe, or give them poor stiffness. It is possible that materials technology will deliver a monolithic, single solid piezo material with a mechanical properties similar to high-strength steel or aluminium, that can be economically turned into a platform for a car, but materials that manage to satisfy every ideal tend to be rather rare. I hope that it is possible, but I do not expect it. This is particularly true as high-strength steels are among the strongest materials known.

It is also worth noting that the tubular space-frame constructions of the two cars that you have shown, are not typical of mass-produced cars. This may be an advantage, as sheet materials are likely to be better suited to the incorporation of piezo components. This site has some good pictures of the construction of the GM Zeta platform, most widely known from the Australian Holden Commodore, and Chevrolet Camaro. Note that the majority of the structure is fabricated from sheet-steel pressings, which are welded together, to create the shell of the car. In particular, there is an interesting image, using colour-coding to identify the different grades of steel used in various parts of the structure. Space-frames, of the type that you have shown, tend to be more expensive to build, and are generally reserved for specialist vehicles, such as sports or racing cars.

My preferred hybrid configuration for that Daihatsu would be the simplest, lightest one possible. Many years ago, there was a device called a "Dynastart". It found some use in 1950's European microcars, like the Isetta and Messerschmitt cars. It worked as a starter-motor, and once the engine was running, it served as a generator and flywheel. As such, it can replace three parts, along with some failure-prone parts, such as the gear that engages a conventional starter-motor with the flywheel, or the rubber belt that drives the alternator. Unfortunately, I think it fell from favour as a result of reliability and serviceability problems, resulting from its early stage of development, and 1950's design and manufacture.

Honda's
is effectively a more modern, better designed and built device, working on the same principles. A large diameter, low profile motor is mounted directly on one end of the crankshaft, needing no gears or belts, and running at engine speed, which suits such an electric motor. I think it has an output of about 10kW. For Honda's hybrids, it still uses a high-voltage battery pack, to provide the voltage and performance to make the vehicle competitive, but I think a smaller version might work, even with only an enlarged conventional battery. I do not know what this motor does to the weight or cost of the engine, but I cannot imagine it increasing either much, and it may reduce both. It is lighter and simpler than having separate motors in the wheels (while also allowing a lower unsprung weight), and lighter than any four-wheel drive configuration, because it needs only a single set of drive-shafts, transmission etc. It also saves boot and back-seat space, compared with a rear-wheel drive assembly. The only downside is that the motor cannot drive the car without also spinning the petrol engine. On the upside, I think that the extra cost of Honda's hybrids tends to be due to the battery, rather than the motor, while the Toyota hybrids cost much more overall because both components are much more expensive.

I think I better understand your attitude towards the design of your concept, now. However, while such a vehicle would represent an ideal of independence, it also sounds like a rather irresponsible starting point for an environmentalist vehicle. The suspension energy recovery system would indeed allow a high output, under such conditions, as may piezo energy recovery from other deformations, but the fundamental energy use, while driving off-road, is much higher than driving on-road. There is indeed plenty of room for improvement, in such existing vehicles. However, as I explained, my ideal of transport is from almost the opposite end of the spectrum, hence my misunderstanding. Also, I have no objection to the idea of luxury features, if they cause no harm. However, I think that the attitude that such inclusions can cultivate, particularly if they are included in relatively cheap cars, is counter-productive, when it leads to an expectation that a car should be fundamentally more than just a mode of transport.

If you are not familiar with the kei-car concept, it is one of the great policies that Japan has had in place, since the second world war. The limited land-space, and limited availability of resources available in Japan, after the war, led them to introduce a law that allowed much cheaper registration, and cheap or free parking, for very small cars. They could also be bought without needing proof that the owner has a place to park it, as is required for other vehicles. The regulations have changed over the years, but for a car to fit into the kei-car class, there have always been limits to the engine size, and the physical size of the cars. More recently, the engine power was also limited. Now the regulations stand thus: Length: less than 3,400mm, width: less than 1,475mm, height: less than 2,000mm, engine size: less than 660cc and power: less than 47kW. The result is a class of very small, very efficient cars that manage to make the best possible use of their interior space, and the best possible use of their limited power. The Daihatsu Mira e:s is in this class of vehicle. There is some more information here. I do quite like the new New Beetle, but it is not small enough, nor low powered enough to fit into that class.

Last edited by MilesR; 11-11-2011 at 01:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
clean personal car, compressed-air propulsion, electric vehicle, green car, hybrid vehicle


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 AM.

 

© 1998 - 2019 Ultimatecarpage.com