EV thread

[Westtown Willy]

you just can't make this stuff up



by the way, does anyone else think this whole concept is just ridiculous to begin with? Why the need to have 'driverless' taxis/ride-sharing? Are we really striving to be this lazy, and stupid? Is it so important to eliminate yet another million jobs humans need and can do just fine in favor of a rolling computer/camera system that's so laden with tech heavy bullshit we end up with the kind of nonsense in the video? I get that in time they'll no doubt perfect it, reduce costs and so forth so from a purely economic taxi service provider standpoint it may 'make sense', but to what end? In the final analysis are we all supposed to be jobless staying home in our government approved pods while every single job is handled by robots & computers?

 

[BlueC]

does anyone else think this whole concept is just ridiculous to begin with? Why the need to have 'driverless' taxis/ride-sharing? Are we really striving to be this lazy, and stupid?

I don't think driverless vehicles are a market driven thing, but a corporate and government pushed thing in the pursuit of more control.

 

[srimes]

That certainly isn't the case when using a diesel - but why we keep fooling around with gas engines is beyond me. Ships and locomotives have used series diesel electric lashups for many decades - why can't cars?

It's absolutely true for diesel. Even MORE so than gas, as gas engine off-peak efficiency drops more severely than diesel due to throttling losses, which diesels don't have as they don't have a throttle. If electric drive was more efficient than mechanical then OTR trucks would use them too. Mechanical transmissions are simply more efficient.

Trains are already super efficient and use electric drive for the super-low, infinitely variable gear ratios. Ships rarely use electric drive. Most big cargo ships are direct drive and don't use a transmission. Some actually run the engines backwards for reverse, and others use variable pitch props.

Not sure that's completely true. Without a direct mechanical connection the engine can be tuned for optimum efficiency at a specific operating point, since there doesn't have to be any consideration for things like a flat torque curve. It could be quite efficient at 3000rpm if no one cares how it runs at 2000 or 4000 because it never runs there.

Is diesel being more efficient than gasoline necessarily a given in this scenario? Keep in mind that when used in a generator, torque is of little importance, and a lightweight, comparatively inexpensive gasoline engine can produce lots of power by just spinning faster.

With todays transmissions and engine controls off-peak engine efficiency is much better than it used to be. Mechanical power transmission is generally extremely efficient. The technology for electric drive has been around for a long time and is very easy to implement and not particularly expensive. If it was so much better we would have seen it in cars already. It's well within the range of home-hobbyist to convert. We easily have a couple-dozen people on this forum who would be capable of such a swap. And it could actually make sense for an off-road vehicle.

Diesels are more efficient than gas for 2 reasons: compression ratio and lack of throttling losses. But APPARENT efficiency is much higher than reality because a gallon of diesel has significantly more energy than a gallon of gas, and people look at miles per gallon. It's the same reason flex-fuel isn't popular, as ethanol has significantly less energy than gas, so MPG takes a big hit, even though system efficiency is similar.

 

[Zorba]

Ships rarely use electric drive. Most big cargo ships are direct drive and don't use a transmission. Some actually run the engines backwards for reverse, and others use variable pitch props.

There are a shit ton of ships that use electric drive - and have done so since at least WW 2. My ex-employer has one, and is in the last stages of having another one built. You may be right about VLCCs, container vessels and similar, but diesel electric is a BIG thing in the marine field, at least on small to medium sized ships which is what I've worked with. Hardly "rare" anyway. The idea is to run the diesel at its MOST efficient speed, and do the SOG variance by altering the speed of the electric motors.

 

[Zorba]

With that configuration, when the battery finally dies, the vehicle becomes a paperweight. If the ICE was connected to the drivetrain, the vehicle would still be useful as a vehicle, even with a dead battery pack.

Agreed. Why even bother with a battery in this configuration?

 

[zebra12]

I saw two of the new body style Prius-es (Prii?) yesterday. I thought they looked much better than the last version.

 

[Zorba]

I saw two of the new body style Prius-es (Prii?) yesterday. I thought they looked much better than the last version.

They're all ugly. The very first gen was ugly too - BUT - looked slightly less simpering than those that followed.

 

[srimes]

There are a shit ton of ships that use electric drive - and have done so since at least WW 2. My ex-employer has one, and is in the last stages of having another one built. You may be right about VLCCs, container vessels and similar, but diesel electric is a BIG thing in the marine field, at least on small to medium sized ships which is what I've worked with. Hardly "rare" anyway. The idea is to run the diesel at its MOST efficient speed, and do the SOG variance by altering the speed of the electric motors.

OK rare was the wrong term. Electric is popular when there are multiple engines used for a variety of load conditions. It is great for fine control, too. But they don't use electric because it's more efficient than mechanical, because it simply isn't.

 

[Zorba]

OK rare was the wrong term. Electric is popular when there are multiple engines used for a variety of load conditions. It is great for fine control, too. But they don't use electric because it's more efficient than mechanical, because it simply isn't.

I disagree. If it weren't more efficient, you'd never see it being done. No sense whatsoever in spending a shit ton of money on an electric system if it decreases efficiency even slightly. The day rate of the ship in question is around $25K/day - most of it is in fuel. If direct connection was better, they certainly would be using it. I also have certain knowledge of a medium sized cargo ship that is diesel electric - the electric motors and props are in pods that swivel. It literally can come to a dead stop within a ship's length by swiveling the pods 180 degrees (from 30 kts). This is owned and operated by a shipping company - do you REALLY think they're interested in spending more money on fuel?

Now I'll grant you that MAYBE it doesn't downscale well enough for automotive use - I don't know about that. Just like steam turbines don't downscale well.

 

[srimes]

I disagree. If it weren't more efficient, you'd never see it being done. No sense whatsoever in spending a shit ton of money on an electric system if it decreases efficiency even slightly. The day rate of the ship in question is around $25K/day - most of it is in fuel. If direct connection was better, they certainly would be using it. I also have certain knowledge of a medium sized cargo ship that is diesel electric - the electric motors and props are in pods that swivel. It literally can come to a dead stop within a ship's length by swiveling the pods 180 degrees (from 30 kts). This is owned and operated by a shipping company - do you REALLY think they're interested in spending more money on fuel?

Now I'll grant you that MAYBE it doesn't downscale well enough for automotive use - I don't know about that. Just like steam turbines don't downscale well.

"If it weren't more efficient, you'd never see it being done." There are many reasons to choose less energy-efficient options. Saving money overall is a big one. On something like a cruise ship the energy required to move is relatively small: the "house load" dominates. So efficiently generating electricity to keep the lights on is key. Mechanically connecting 4 diesel generators and 2 turbines would be super expensive and never pay for itself in fuel savings. Same reason many people don't buy hybrids or super energy-efficient, solar-powered houses: the initial cost is too high vs. long-term savings.

A good example that we're more familiar with is construction equipment, skid steers, excavators, and zero-turn mowers, etc., that use hydraulic drive systems. Hydraulic drives are quite inefficient but they provide a ton of control, reliability, and compact, flexible packaging. But when the main job is pulling, like it is for farm tractors, they're back to using mechanical power transmission.

Pod drives are fantastic for maneuverability. That's why every bass boat has them. Not fuel efficiency.

 

[Zorba]

"If it weren't more efficient, you'd never see it being done." There are many reasons to choose less energy-efficient options. Saving money overall is a big one. On something like a cruise ship the energy required to move is relatively small: the "house load" dominates. So efficiently generating electricity to keep the lights on is key. Mechanically connecting 4 diesel generators and 2 turbines would be super expensive and never pay for itself in fuel savings. Same reason many people don't buy hybrids or super energy-efficient, solar-powered houses: the initial cost is too high vs. long-term savings.

A good example that we're more familiar with is construction equipment, skid steers, excavators, and zero-turn mowers, etc., that use hydraulic drive systems. Hydraulic drives are quite inefficient but they provide a ton of control, reliability, and compact, flexible packaging. But when the main job is pulling, like it is for farm tractors, they're back to using mechanical power transmission.

Pod drives are fantastic for maneuverability. That's why every bass boat has them. Not fuel efficiency.

I couldn't tell you about construction equipment - and we're not talking cruise ships with a huge Hotel load either - I don't know how the math works out in that use case. I can guaran-damn-tee that NO ocean going shipping company wants to spend a dime more per nautical mile on fuel than they have to - and they don't give a damn about maneuverability either - the swivel pod example was a happy circumstance, nothing more. I have no idea how this scales up to the VLCC type ships (or not), but for the size of ships of which I'm familiar, it was done to save fuel. Done. Full Stop. If it saves even $2,000 of fuel a day, they're going to do it. That's almost 3/4s of a million dollars saved in a year. I can't imagine the day rate on the freighter I was yakking about - maybe $50K? More? *shrug*

 

[lBasket]

you just can't make this stuff up



by the way, does anyone else think this whole concept is just ridiculous to begin with? Why the need to have 'driverless' taxis/ride-sharing? Are we really striving to be this lazy, and stupid? Is it so important to eliminate yet another million jobs humans need and can do just fine in favor of a rolling computer/camera system that's so laden with tech heavy bullshit we end up with the kind of nonsense in the video? I get that in time they'll no doubt perfect it, reduce costs and so forth so from a purely economic taxi service provider standpoint it may 'make sense', but to what end? In the final analysis are we all supposed to be jobless staying home in our government approved pods while every single job is handled by robots & computers?

I read a book about this type of end-game relating to AI (not EVs specifically, sorry). Wtf to do with humans when AI/robots take over majority of jobs. Should they just languish in poverty?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1101946598/?tag=wranglerorg-20

 

[ColoJeep]

I hear you - I'm not a fan of the bullshit that diesels are saddled with today. But given my druthers, I'd use diesel for everything - even my lawn mower! Still, I find it strange that the rest of the world largely runs on diesel, only in N. America are they disliked. Of course, GMs multiple BS diesels, coupled with "dieselgate", etc, etc. didn't do them any favors. A good diesel engine is fantastic - but a bad one is HELL. Plus they don't do well with neglect and stupidity.

If you could build a 250 C.I.D I-6 diesel with 4 valves per cylinder , turbo , intercooled and mechanical cam fired direct injection it would be great !
But your correct about GM screwing the diesel pooch. All people remember is the turd in the litter box like the 5.7 , 6.2 , 6.5 and to be fair this goes back to 1964 when GMC introduced the Toro-Flow diesel codeveloped with a V-6 gasser you may have heard of. Honestly not many folks were thrilled with the 130h.p. D-351.

 

[Zorba]

If you could build a 250 C.I.D I-6 diesel with 4 valves per cylinder , turbo , intercooled and mechanical cam fired direct injection it would be great !
But your correct about GM screwing the diesel pooch. All people remember is the turd in the litter box like the 5.7 , 6.2 , 6.5 and to be fair this goes back to 1964 when GMC introduced the Toro-Flow diesel codeveloped with a V-6 gasser you may have heard of. Honestly not many folks were thrilled with the 130h.p. D-351.

View attachment 472366

There's virtually no info whatsoever available about the Toro-Flows, other than the GMC 6066 site - and it doesn't have much. I don't think any of them survived. But what V6 gasser would you be referring to? Never heard of one...

I love my MBZ's OM 617A - although it doesn't have the power a newer design would. The base design is from the mid 1960s, its only 2 valve and the turbo isn't intercooled. But its dead nuts reliable and long lived, which are my priorities when it comes to just about anything.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

With that configuration, when the battery finally dies, the vehicle becomes a paperweight. If the ICE was connected to the drivetrain, the vehicle would still be useful as a vehicle, even with a dead battery pack.

Seems like that would depend on how the circuit was set up. There's no battery inherently required to run an electric motor off a generator, you'd just be limited to the amount of power the engine can put out without having the battery as a buffer reservoir.

I'd be interested to see how hard it would be to use a capacitor instead of a battery. Probably way more dangerous...ride the lightning so to speak.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

With todays transmissions and engine controls off-peak engine efficiency is much better than it used to be. Mechanical power transmission is generally extremely efficient.

But how much more efficient could a gas engine be if you could take the development and tech that's gone into off-peak performance and focus it on maximizing the peak without having to be concerned even the slightest with off peak?

The technology for electric drive has been around for a long time and is very easy to implement and not particularly expensive. If it was so much better we would have seen it in cars already.

I'm not sure it's viability can be assumed as the sole reason it's not out there already. I think driver expectations (and what they're used to with a mechanically connected ICE vehicle) as well as politics (ICE= evil so no one wants to develop anything that still depends on it, regardless of whether it's still better or not) play a big role.

It's well within the range of home-hobbyist to convert. We easily have a couple-dozen people on this forum who would be capable of such a swap. And it could actually make sense for an off-road vehicle.

To a degree. If you're just slapping an electric motor in where the old engine and/transmission sat, then yes there is availability for that. It's much harder if not impossible for a hobbyist to do something like what I would like, which would be individual motors per axle or even per wheel, eliminating any gears altogether.

Diesels are more efficient than gas for 2 reasons: compression ratio and lack of throttling losses. But APPARENT efficiency is much higher than reality because a gallon of diesel has significantly more energy than a gallon of gas, and people look at miles per gallon. It's the same reason flex-fuel isn't popular, as ethanol has significantly less energy than gas, so MPG takes a big hit, even though system efficiency is similar.

Yes but to get the same hp the diesel running half the rpm will need to develop double the torque, which along with the extra cylinder pressure it's going to be a much heavier and more expensive engine. Not to say its still not better, I just think there's still a place for gas in this scenario for people that have a different priority between initial cost and ultimate efficiency.

 

[InOmaha]

Ram is building an EV variant of the Ram 1500 which has the 3.6L Pentastar V6 installed as a generator. There's NO mechanical linkage between this engine and the wheels. As long as there's gas in the tank, you can drive with electric power to the wheels. This is good for 663 horsepower and 615 lb.-ft of torque and 60 mph in 4.4 seconds. Ram says this truck will be rated for 2,626 pounds of payload and 12,750 pounds of towing.


The Hurricate I6T takes over as the volume engine.

"The 3.0-liter Hurricane engine is rated at 420 horsepower and 469 lb.-ft. of torque, while the High Output engine is rated at 540 hp and 521 lb.-ft. of torque."



The Hemis are gone. No more 5.7, no more TRX.

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/11/07...d-range-ramcharger-ev-and-hurricane-i6-power/

That I6 might be a perfect fit in my 2006 TJ when it comes to a swap. I could live with only 420 HP and 469 ft-lbs.

I read they will be avaiable in new Jeeps too. So that could help with a swap. Find a wrecked Jeep and fit the whole powertrain. Hmmmm

 

[KennethS]

I'd be interested to see how hard it would be to use a capacitor instead of a battery. Probably way more dangerous...ride the lightning so to speak.

Prolly need a flux capacitor to handle that amount of power.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

Prolly need a flux capacitor to handle that amount of power.

1.21 gigawatts!?!

 

[Zorba]

1.21 gigawatts!?!

You're going to see some serious shit.

Capacitor technology has come a LONG way since I was a pup - Philip Jose Farmer foresaw this in his SF writings - a device he called the "Battacitor" that would charge very quickly like a capacitor, but would dole it out slowly like a battery - in other words, a huge ass capacitor.