What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?

[jbs]

It'smore complicated than this, but it's a starting point --- their is a lot more available on the internet

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

This discussion cuts to the heart of the vehicle energy disaster.  (OPEC control of the world)  This study by the US givernment trying to justify their 55 mph stupid is part of the problem not the solution to energy.

The starting premise is " Your car's gas mileage" buried in these few words are the false assumptions.  Your car is not defined and in this is assumed to be a brick with a gash for a windshield.  Also implied in these few words is the idea that cars run on gasoline.  So "your car" is the most important factor in gasoline mileage not speed above some bogus 55 mph BS by the givernment.  So if we separate out the gasoline cars from the electrics the 55 mph bogus optimum drops to less than 1 mph.  That is because the electric motor does not idle and does not have the problem of "pumping losses".  It is counter-intuitive that a car would get worse mileage at 45 mph than at 55 mph.  As it turns out it is counter-intuitive because it is simply false for any car other than the crap the traditional car guys put out.  

Let us do a comparison of electric car to gasoline car on gallons of fuel to traverse a continent.  Let us look at the solar https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/15/this-is-the-future-solar-powered-family-car-hailed-by-experts  How many gallons did it burn up to move at 55.5 mph?  This is 2018 by the way.  The folk lore created by the department of energy in 1979 was aimed at the crap on the road back then.  They had three speed transmissions.  They had thick hypoid grease in the rear differential.  They had brake pads that by design dragged when the brakes were not applied.  They had randomly tuned carburetors that were too rich.  The recommended tire pressure was lower than today.  Lots of things went into making those cars get about 17 mpg on a good day.  Using those old cars as your science on car performance is not a wise choice.  

So I jumped from fuel mileage of 17 to 21 to infinity.  Now starting back at infinity and working backwards is there some speed that values the customer and still is at infinity mpg?  The answer is yes.  

It is useful to break out the energy discussion from how many barrels of sweet crude oil should we buy from Iran and Venezuela to how many solar cells will we buy from China without an Obama or Trump imposed tariff?  I suggest that America stand up advance solar production and leave crude oil in the past for something to burn up.  

How fast can the entire urban fleet of cars run on zero gallons of gasoline?  That answer is 180 mph using Denver as the example case that I presented at solar 2006.  (ancient times)     What if the public needs to go faster to allow more humans to be born?  Then 210 mph is doable still at zero gallons of gasoline but instead of the solar array being 7 feet wide it needs to be a little wider.

How can water be moved from the Mississippi River to Los Angles at a price that is less than Pacific Ocean salt water?  Answer is a solar farm just under the guideway infrastructure.  The farm income pays for much of the cost of moving the water.  Pipelines do not have farm income to offset anything. Desal does not generate income because table salt sells for less than a dollar for what I consider a lifetime supply since I don't like to eat a lot of salty food.  No body wants all that salt it generates.  You cannot pour it on the fields as that is how the Romans devastated their enemies for generations.  

So the discussion about 55 mph from Jimmy Carter days can do some good by taking it to the limit of gasoline mileage (infinity) and then backing off to find the speed that serves mankind without putting the world's security in danger.  The 55 mph speed limit was based on a lie.  It was to get public involved.  This is akin to the WWII metal drives where the public was encouraged to melt down all they had for the war effort.  They really did not need to melt all their possessions to provide the iron for the war.  It was to get people involved and being the idea of world war.  All the things that were melted down had value not proportionate to the few pounds of steel they became.  Mining iron ore would have made more sense for the metal they needed.  It is shameful when the givernment takes advantage of the public using fake science as a motivational tool.   

The measured data in the link is valid for those specific car models and nothing more.  Even an expensive Tesla Model S would blow away those performance curves shown in the Green Car 55 mph support document.  

I am in no way denying that the square of the speed is not in the vehicle equation.  I am saying the beginning assumptions are crap and that makes for crap counter-intuitive fake science.  

If your time is worth nothing then much slower is better.  Water is not in a hurry so it is set to go 40 mph (less than 55).  To go slower I have to build more ZoomHydros so it comes at an up front cash cost to go slower.  Energy pitted against increased initial cost is the trade off.  

If you want the entire people transportation fleet to run slower you must have more asphalt paced acreage to hold them.  55 mph would come at a huge cost to the public requiring more pavement at premium prices for lane expansions on every main road.  

Jerry  

[jbs]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Jerry Roane wrote:

> Jerry
> This discussion cuts to the heart of the vehicle energy disaster.  (OPEC control of the world)  This study by the US givernment trying to justify their 55 mph stupid
> is part of the problem not the solution to energy.

Aside from the many details and diversions you provide, it's pretty clear to me that for the most part, high speeds burn more gasoline and reduce MPG in most of the gas powered cars on the road today. Maybe that is also true of electric cars - do higher speeds drawn down the battery charge faster than lower speeds - what is the relationship - in general terms?
---------------------------------------------

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

This is the vehicle equation.  Notice the last term in the bottom equation.  It shows a V squared (velocity).  That is what all the hoopla is about.  

Raising elevation most people get that part.  

Electric motors are roughly 93% efficient so the drag tracks mileage (kwhours) pretty close.  With the gasoline engine and its horrific non-linear curve that is what throws dirt in the air to confuse the public about mpg.  

All this ignores the part the transmission plays in messing up the answer.  If you drive around in the wrong gear your mileage may vary.  The air is doing the same thing but the fuel is going fast if you leave the gear shifter in a much lower gear.  With most electrics there is no changing of gears other than the single one they picked.  Electronically they feed the pulses at the rate to match the car's speed.  The switching power modules are extremely efficient making those pulse width modulated signals from battery storage.  The batteries are extremely energy efficient so the drag equation is very near the energy side of the equation making it easy to do the math on an all electric and very confusing for everyone trying to do the gasoline counterpart.   

One dead spark plug will destroy your mileage as an example.  One deflated tire also can wreck your mileage because it induces a torque in the whole car rubbing off rubber everywhere you drive and wasting copious amounts of fuel.  That is why your car has a government mandate to add the tire inflation idiot light.  It was a result of the energy crisis that was a good thing.   

In general terms you need a car that slips through the air easily.  This applies to any speed that I would desire to drive.  At slower speeds like say 17 mph or 24 mph none of this discussion matters in the least.  Transit buses going 17 mph don't have much aero component to their waste of fuel getting 3 mpg or so with 4 passengers on board.  They can be a block to the wind and sort of get away with it because of all the other loses in tires and just massive weight and no way to recover all that  kinetic energy when they pull up to a bus stop.  

To answer your question there is not a simple answer to a complex equation.  It is what it is.  Complex.  Answers need to be accurately validated empirically for gas cars because of the complexity involved.  Thus the mpg sticker on new cars that some day may become accurate but it not today.  

Jerry Roane 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

The vehicle needs energy to do work [Nm] = (Drag Forces [N] x distance
[m]) or (Power [N.m/s] x time [s]) and as JerryR states, rolling
resistance drag is assumed linear and aerodynamic drag is a squared
function wrt velocity - see clear plot attached (top).

But the 'fuel in' (WTW chemical or electric energy) will be at least
twice the primary energy due to the significant conversion and
transmission losses.

Examples:
Diesel: 42.1 MJ/kg x 0.855 kg/ltr (at ~25C) = 36 MJ/ltr

36MJ/3.6 = 10 kWh/ltr

Diesel 10 kWh/ltr (chemical) * 48% conversion efficiency = 4.8 kWh/ltr
(mechanical) shaft output (not the 10kWh/ltr electric as stated in the
attached slide).

Diesel fuel production (80%), the engine (48%) efficient and the
driveline (85%) = 32%. The rest is wasted as heat on the way.

Electric generated from Gas (51%): transmission and distributed T&D
(99%x97%x99% = 95%): inverter and driveline 84% = 41%

Wind/Solar (95%?): Storage (74%): T&D (87%): inverter and driveline
(84%) = 51%

Mixed generation (73%): T&D (87%): BEV 'round trip' storage and
driveline (61%) = 39%

The total 'fuel in' is Primary Energy / overall efficiency.

Also for a given voltage (AC or DC) the power lost in an electrical
network is a square of the current. So saving 20% on the primary losses
draws less power (IV) through the network and so reduces the T$D losses
by as much as a third.

In congested traffic running the engine and/or auxiliary loads consumes
energy irrespective of the vehicle speed - see the less clear 'real
world' plot attached (bottom).

~Carl

PS. The tabulated values in kW (attached plots, top-left) are for
fossil (or generated electric) 'fuel-in' for the different vehicle
types. The primary power for each would typically be half that.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl

Thank you for getting into this discussion.  Do you have references for the following sentence?:

"Electric generated from Gas (51%): transmission and distributed T&D

(99%x97%x99% = 95%): inverter and driveline 84% = 41%"

My "inverter" is no where near that crappy.  The drive line on a three wheel vehicle avoids the differential and heavy grease so the drive line is a cog belt.  Pretty efficient.  On the guideway there is even less drive line.  This is doable because of the extremely smooth rolling surface.    Wheel motor.  Several EVs are wheel motors too on asphalt.  

CoGen has a wide range of efficiencies it really depends on the particular power plant involved.  I advocate for PV solar exclusively to avoid this tie to the old ways.  The worst that can happen is you "waste" sunshine that would otherwise be 100% "wasted".  The capital equipment has to be amortized in some fair way but the solar input to this closed loop view of energy breaks the model.  

CoGen can go as high as 66% efficiency and ZoomHydro shipping thermal energy to homes and city centers can further increase the co-gen efficiency.  No one has taken me up on selling thermal energy that is presently "waste" energy.  Gates belt publishes the energy efficiency of their advanced composite belts.  https://ww2.gates.com/europe/brochure.cfm?brochure=7735&location_id=3573  98% efficiency for the driveline on a low horsepower application like a pod car but not so much on a transit bus tank.  

The other part of that is instead of going to the old inefficient grid for power you skip the distribution network losses and feed the transportation network directly with DC from the panels.  Then some of those extra energy conversions are not required.  Same for LED lighting going directly off the DC of the battery's cells or the solar cells.  That is a bit nit picking since LED lighting is already so efficient but energy wasted is energy you pay for but you get no value from the waste.  

Your fuel png image is interesting.  I would like to add pod cars or TriTrack to it.  Do you know how that could be included on the charts?  What efficient vehicles do to those types of graphs is it flat-lines most graphs as the vertical scale changes to fit the various vehicles on the same graphic.  

New developments in the controller world have more efficient switching electronic devices that further improve the inverter efficiency.  MOSFETs are old tech now.  

Jerry Roane 

> transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to

transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

 

The 84% tank-to-wheel (TTW) is an estimate of a tethered electric system and assumes (AC/DC 85%: Inverter 95%: Driveline 90%).  The gas turbine (51%) assumes some ramp up, the two 99% step-up step-down transformers and the 97% HVAC transmission losses see links below.

 

http://www.decentralized-energy.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/gas-turbines-breaking.html

 

"‘The combined-cycle plant at Killingholme, UK, had achieved an efficiency of 52% in 1992,’ says Fischer. ‘In the last 15 years, the efficiency of combined-cycle power plants has been improved continuously.’ By the tail end of that decade, the F-class had risen to 56%. Incremental changes throughout the next ten years pushed the figure ever closer to the 60% goal (Figure 1)."

 

T&D losses:  https://iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSOK.pdf

 

The Battery electric (BEV) example assumes the TTW losses are as above but the vehicle has the addition of the round-trip losses of the batteries.  The Tesla, as with most BEVs, wastes roughly 25% of the energy supplied charging/discharging the battery and running the aircon while doing so.

 

The CHALLENGE here is to step back far enough to see the BIGGER picture and also work close enough to appreciate the real problems and the real opportunities. 

 

If a diesel generator, for example, is taken off a bus and set down at the roadside with jump leads to a catenary powering the same bus, the bus does not magically become twice as efficient. 

 

And the electricity generated from renewables has a cost, it is desperately needed and can not be used wastefully.  Fossil fuels will always be on hand to fill the gap.

 

The T&D companies are already selling us the idea of V2G so they can add battery storage to their already overloaded network, in the hope that they can then bolt on much more renewables and charge our cars on the existing domestic network.  This is wishful thinking and like nuclear power, in the long term the decommissioning costs of a substandard, poorly thought through solution will be born by the tax-payer.  Instead, as you suggest, we should take the opportunity to build completely new infrastructure designed for the purpose and linking across to the existing grid G2G.

 

I have had to cut this short as I got way off topic.  I suspect your coGen reference is from the detail of my GPT proposal, if so thank you.  You are the first to have read it on this forum.

 

Attached is a series of images to demonstrate the effect of speed on the various 'drag' components and energy consumption.

 

A) The top row shows the onset of unstable flow due to the traffic volume and the resulting drop in the average speed.

 

B) The bottom row shows what happens when the flow again stabilises and the speeds pick up again.

 

~Carl

 

PS. The parameters could be readily adjusted to simulate any vehicle type but the model is designed for the global issues of traffic flow, congestion and energy use. Removing the vehicles that have taken to the TriTrack guideway from the congested flow is already demonstrated here but in this case the cars have been downsized to citycars and moved on to Bladerunner transporters at interchanges.  The same logic runs through both concepts with, I would suspect, similar net outcomes.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl

Great work here.  Lots of good references for people to consider.  This is a good reflection of what is now.  Tesla is not an energy product nor a safe the planet vehicle.  It is a high end luxury car that that niche wants to buy.  It has way too big of a battery pack for my taste and that has negative effects on their round trip energy number.  I find it discouraging that Tesla is that poorly performing on the charge/recharge cycle.  It gets even worse if they push the fast charger as more heat has to be removed that is just lost energy.  

The opportunities are the efficiencies of each of these enumerate parts.  Going fully off the old grid is the best way to get away from these numbers that are not optimized yet.  On a macro scale I am not sure I fully believe all these inefficiencies as it is hard to hide millions of watts going into the atmosphere without seeing a giant steam plume exiting the building trying to remove that much waste heat.  85% is the one that jumps out at me as being possibly too low.  Our battery pack is fully encased in high conduction aluminum so no need for wasting energy on air conditioning the battery pack.  All our air conditioning is used on the comfort of the occupants.  

I already mentioned the drive-line as being old-school and super inefficient.  It is just accepted in the auto business that the rear differential be that crappy.  One more reason for three wheels not four by the way.  

Reference from  -- http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/12/12427/htm 

1. Introduction The combined heat and power (CHP) system produces heat and electricity with high efficiency by consuming oil, natural gas, and biomass, etc. [1]. The well-known cogeneration system has been considered to be the most promising alternative to traditional energy supplying systems. Compared to conventional generation of heat and electricity in a decoupled way, the overall efficiency of the co-generating technique can reach up to 70%–80% [2,3].

So although the present power grid is criminally poor for efficiency it does not have to stay that way.  Going fully off grid does leap-frog these irresponsible grid controllers though.  

On the simulation I had in mind putting a three wheel electric on the ground slugging it out with all those cars and graphing the same results.  It would show how low performing gasoline cars are that have four rubber wheels.  I already assume traffic is solved and not worth too much discussion about how bad it once was.  

Thanks for the information and references. 

Jerry Roane 

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com> wrote:

Jerry,

 

> transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to
transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Keen eyed Jerry.

 

"Electric generated from Gas (51%): transmission and distributed T&D

(99%x97%x99% = 95%): inverter and driveline 84% = 41%"

 

The inverter and drive line is (AC/DC 98%: Inverter 95%: Driveline 90%) = 84%

 

However, for a tethered system there needs to be a DC rail, AC catenary or dynamic wireless power transfer (DWPT) in place, the best of which will have efficiencies ranging from (80-95%).

 

All these efficiencies are for optimum conditions.  In the real world, for example, a power supply shipped to the US works less efficiently than it would here in the UK.

 

You commented on the efficiency profile of IC engines. Electric motors also have an efficiency profile (0 to 1) varying with speed and torque.  When you apply this factor to the WTW figures the same characteristic carries through upstream (generation 50% x motor 70% = ICE 35%) - see example attached.  It is congestion that impacts most on the efficiency of both vehicle types and running a 600W computer in the boot of the EV is exactly the same load as the Aux load in the simulation (purple) with a similarly devastating effect on the energy consumption kWh/km of the vehicles.  Artificial Intelligence has Hobson's choice if we don't offer it viable alternatives.  Electric has the potential to eliminate CO2 but lets plug some of the huge gaps in the logic of what counts for reasonable levels of consumption or acceptable levels of waste.  Route cause analyses (sixSigma) needs to implemented by the humans before AI takes over and tells us when we can and can not drive.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319306629_Fuzzy_logic_based_driving_pattern_recognition_for_hybrid_electric_vehicle_energy_management

 

~Carl

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl

The electric motor he chose is not one I would use in a battery/electric.  As he presents it he is assuming a hybrid and conventional transmission both very non-optimum.  When I was a Electromatic Drive Corporation I worked on a CVT that eliminates the two charts for less than optimum ICE or motor performance curves.  You will notice the Prius has one of these CVT in it.  Running an AC electric motor off the starting capacitor is weak.  Don't do that!  No one runs their gasoline engine at less  than idol RPM because it will just stall out and die.  The simple cure for the map of inefficiency is only operate one of the motors in the series of motors at one speed (AKA 180 mph)  Then all these intersecting charts simplify.  Also his motor is horrible for efficiency the worst on the market.  He must be looking at a budget low horsepower motor to be that inefficient.  EV motors will be better than the one on the graph or the motor will get far too hot to be useful.  

I object to the use of the Tesla truck and car in the graphic as Tesla is not aimed at energy but at high end niche markets that they have dominated already.  No need to go there (BMW et al)  Fast charge is damaging to battery life yet the high end Tesla market is not concerned with the last dollar and blows off the loss that fast charging makes.  Same with too much power in their cars.  Rather than right-size the drive train Tesla has decided to oversize the motor and then you do run into the graphs in this thesis.  

A comment about where 600 watts might be going in a trunk mounted computer.  If you seek out where that power is going very little of it goes the computing engine but most goes to the advanced graphics card and display brightness.  Since those are not essential for anything they can be dropped down to functional display that is no more than a digital watch that can run on a single button battery for 4 years.  The human interface display is where that 600 watts is wasted but it does not have to.  

I have been playing around with what displays on the dashboard are required and I am about to drop them completely.  The reason the Model A had all those gauges is the thing broke or overheated all the time.  In my present car I have never in 150,000 miles had the temperature go above normal.  So the usefulness of the temperature gauge on my present Chevy is zero.  Same for the alternator gauge showing voltage.  Since the alternator has never failed the gauge has no value.  Same for self-driving cars religiously going the speed limit.  Why do you need a speedometer if the car never speeds?  Just wasted graphics and instrumentation.  The next time you climb into an electric golf cart notice how many gauges are on the dashboard.  There are two cup holders and a cove to put your gloves but there are no gauges.  If the thing stops running on the 8th hole you just call the club house and the send you another one.  The human control is go/stop pedal and forward/reverse.  That is pretty much it.  Most do not have a radio because you are not sitting in a golf cart for long enough to find a good song playing.  It is fast enough that you do not need a vast array of entertainment options.  

My point here is that all the internal numbers are cute but once solved not needed to send to the user.  Everything they need to know is not much once the system is optimized internally.

Assumption I differ on:  

1. create a system where the motor only operates at the best RPM

2. Do not use a magnetic energy link that leaks energy so swap battery packs and use a $12 connector not some bogus IEEE overly expensive piece of junk

3. Do not have a drive-line to waste energy

4. Do not include an inverter in the system design.  If it comes in DC keep it DC.  If it comes ion AC keep it AC.  The CVT can accomplish this if you prefer AC.  In other words don't be tethered.

5. Suggest staying DC so the 50 hertz/60 hertz issue is null.

6. Traffic congestion to be solved completely with over supply of infrastructure.  This ample supply of guideway implies that the construction cost be less than the toll for any segment of the network.  

With these modifications listed the thesis would drastically change.  It would be untethered EV on guideway self-driving on the "last mile".   It would run on sunshine and dump the grid and more importantly dump the ICE exhaust pipe and the 3 million people per year (300,000 in the US) who die young from that stupid idea that is now obsolete.  

At the core of this is whether you put power in the center of the design or energy.  Energy trumps all in the end.    

Jerry Roane 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

 

I am talking in general terms and I just picked two graphs that could be easily compared - I have not read the paper yet.  The point is moving from fossil fuels to electric does not solve the energy problem but it would improve local emissions.  Before we go down the road of converting everything to electric we first need to get to grips with the primary losses and as you point out the less than optimum operation of electric motors on the road - in congestion. 

 

We just have different approaches:

 

Aerodynamics:

TriTrack - teardrop x1 (180mph)

Bladerunner - x6 to 10 microcars grouped behind one frontal area (80mph)

 

Rolling resistance: Both on rails

Note: rolling resistance is typically a function of load imposed.  Dropping to three wheels on the road increases the load on each proportionately - little real benefit.

 

Battery/Tethered:  Batteries are useful for small efficient vehicles which run at their design speed but tethered electric improves the performance of large vehicles running in mixed traffic, provides up to a Megawatt of backup power per vehicle for the grid, avoids cumulative roundtrip losses when charging microcars and improves the efficiency of KERS.  The infrastructure also links up the generation capacity along the corridors and services the local communities - coGen +PV +Wind ++. see attached.

 

Note: AI - Deep learning is performed on the GPU - graphics cards.  Nvidia are leading the way.

 

"At the core of this is whether you put power in the center of the design or energy.  Energy trumps all in the end."

 

I totally agree, we need to design to minimise energy intensity.

 

~Carl

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl

I did not mean to imply that TriTrack was everything for everyone.  Sorry about that.  It serves its market and there is plenty of room for other designs for other end customers.  I like your approach too.  It improves traffic and gets cars off those rubber tires.  

I would like to agree with you on the three wheels not changing the rolling friction.  The car can have 20 wheels and the same is true.  Each wheel would just take less of the load and because it is quasi-linear three wheels is no different than four for rolling friction.  Where the single rear wheel on rear wheel drive comes into play is leaving out any need of a rear differential.  The rear differential is horrible for energy loss.  It uses syrupy grease and the gears at a right angle rub more than other arrangements of gears.  The ring gear and pinion is the problem as well as slinging around the spider gears.  They sling a lot of grease heating up the rear housing so much that fancy cars have heat fins on the rear housing cap to better waste that unnecessary heat.  In your post it was the 90% figure attributed to drive-line.  Most of that can be eliminated by the three wheel arrangement either electric or ICE.  There are plenty of three wheel ICE vehicles on the open market.  I have test driven one and it was great fun being overpowered and only the single rear wheel.  The car salesman was in the passenger seat so I did not take it into a full donut spin but I got close just to test the stability and the ability to drift in that configuration.  Three wheels just dumps the unnecessary weight and cost of the useless forth wheel.  Minor cost minor weight on its own but considering weight compounding and complexity increasing it is more than most people think it is.  

zero to 60 times are going to be better leaving the dead weight at home.  The three wheeler I tested had a rice burner sedan engine which would be weak in a sedan but was very sporty in the three wheeler with open cockpit.  Reverse tricycle is better for stopping than forward tricycle.  Most braking force is generated by the front tires and the rears just keep you going in line during a hard stop.  There are dynamic reasons for the front brakes getting most of the downward load and thus most of the braking.  

I have to disagree on the electric not beating the ICE hands down on energy.  Pick any two vehicles on the road and compare BTU to BTU.  The ICE will lose.  Sure you COULD build a good ICE design but they don't.  (yet)  What the battery does is limits the total energy available to the car so that FORCES the EV design that might sell to be efficient.  The ones that stink will never sell so that is self limiting.  

I complain about platooning on this list because the platoon is not tight enough to be of value.  Bladerunner solves this issue by having one set of brakes to stop the whole set of cars.  The cars are close enough behind one front deflector that platooning does work.  Inches not yards.  I can see Bladerunner really helping out in intense urban traffic daily snarls as your post explains.  It may also be well suited for groups of cars traveling long distances once the logistics are automated.  (big data opportunity)  Bed and Breakfast for your travels.  B&B but for cars.  

By the way back on the number of wheels issue on guideway the load is carried on 7 wheels on the metal rolling surfaces.  So 7 not 3.  It is three wheels on the road where I do not intend to travel very far at all.  

Comment on the attachment-- I do not believe much of anything Siemens puts out on energy.  They are cheating the battery electric to get their mega-proposal to look better.  They show a brick of a truck in all cases which is wrong.  Your BladeRunner is far more aerodynamic than those boxes.  It is the box that wastes energy either electric or gasoline or natural gas or diesel.  Stop that!  

You are correct about using the GPU for self-driving but while on TriTrack self-driving can switch off the GPU as it is not at all necessary.

Jerry Roane   

[WALTER BREWER]

Jerry,
Sir Isaac Newton would agree to a first order, 3 vs 4 etc.
How would he feel if the wheel to surface contact deflection energies wee different. Or had nonlinear deflection vs force applied? If, for example, weight distribution, including due to acceleration/deceleration were different?

BTW. I have a 3 wheel cycle, 1 font, I use to ride on ice and snow roads. 24 vs 26 inch wheels. It takes more energy to pedal, even on dry roads. No differential, one wheel drive, but 2 rear wheels are on a driven shaft with bearings etc. So not a good proof of either point of view.

Walt Brewer





--------------------------------------------

On Sat, 1/27/18, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [t-i] What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?

To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2018, 3:30 PM

T&D(99%x97%x99% = 95%): inverter and

unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To
post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@
googlegroups.com.
Visit
this group at https://groups.google.com/
group/transport-innovators.
For
more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to transport-innovators+

unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@
googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/
group/transport-innovators.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

 

Roll on the day when we do have TriTrack to use and I already appreciate the road performance of the three wheel setup - see attached from my proposal.

 

I don't believe the general hype on electric that is why I am saying that the magic with electric is being able to leave the generator behind and discount the BTU overhead.  Real electric vehicles carry their solar panels on their roof or in your case I could accept alongside the guideway.  In all other cases the PV energy has to pass in and out of batteries on the ground before going in and out of batteries on the vehicle.  Ground based battery systems are typically of the less efficient longer lasting designs and the availability of renewables generally means that energy is wasted because the grid links are not optimised and gas turbines have to ramp up and down.  In summary all modern well to wheel routes appear roughly the same (40% x 80% or 80% x 40%). We need better vehicle and infrastructure designs first!! Renewable electric needs to win out in the long run because it could reduce CO2 and NOX emissions to near zero - saving millions of lives.

 

However the UK is backing gas (imported) for a substantial portion of our generation capacity well into the future because of the growth in demand - see attached.

 

~Carl

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Walter,

The imposed force vs deflection of tyres is nonlinear, trailing wheels
have less drag than driven, large wheels less than smaller ones and if
you pedal hard enough for long enough the heat build up in the tyres
will benefit you with reduced drag for a while as they cool. Slight
geometric misalignment of the additional wheel, even that caused by
frame flex during the pedal cycle, will induce torsion of the contact
patch and further increase drag. However, given that you use the
tricycle in the snow and ice I presume it is during the festive season
so there is likely more to carry than just the additional weight of one
extra wheel, there is a larger frame(s) to consider - proof enough for a
bike?

~Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[WALTER BREWER]

Carl,

Neat Buffalo NY, the festive season can run from November to April as far as ice and snow on roads**are concerned. But swamping the wheel to surface issues I brought up for Tri Tracks etc, and the extra shaft/bearings and issues you mention, is wind even protective clothing for. Be;ow 10 deg F, I wear a face mask. Person frontal area dominates. My cycle has 6 sped shifter to help. It is very stable , even on pure ice.

Couple days ago, FOX news, maybe Business news, interviewed a promoter of a 3rd wheel rear car. It seemed to have just one seat. "85% of commuters are SOV". So more stable, and better wind protection I suppose.

** My favorite subject for research. Why we can't clear roads down to surface, instead a dangerous layer of ice.snow.

Walt Brewer

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 1/28/18, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com> wrote:

Subject: RE: [t-i] What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2018, 5:27 AM

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Walt,

Possibly overly subtle to make it across the Atlantic but I had implied
that your bike may have been harder to pedal in the ice and snow because
of seasonally large food portions and increased frame weight and it was
likely safer on a bike than in a car due to possibly a little alcohol.

For an urban concept I would like to have a go in the i-Road - image
attached. It steers at the rear and leans at the front.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl

You bring up wheel alignment to the intended path.  This is an important tweak to improve all cars and motorcycle's efficiency.  Pointing the wheels in the precise direction is not presently done in front end steering elements.  They approximate straight but do not achieve exact wheel pointing.  I suggest in the self-diving mode it will be easier to remove this error in how front ends are constructed and that the electronics can properly point the wheels in the exact direction of intended travel.  

if you look at the tires on a dirt track race car you will notice the tires are pointed wonky (a technical term)   They do this to compensate for all the slipping and sliding that it going on but if you were to drive those same cars set up that way on asphalt they would eat up a set of tires in a few hundred miles.  Not only is the caster can camber set up heavily conflicting the steering angles change as the steering wheel is turned.  The basic geometry of the drag link and steering rods is intentionally not correct to match the arc of the travel of the car.  The tires always rub off on the pavement in a parking garage as is evidenced by the black scuff marks on the concrete.  With self-driving cars no longer will you steer with just one steering wheel but rather you will steer each front wheel separately.  This would allow for the tire to roll EXACTLY on the intended arc of the car.  This will be true whether the weight in the car is heavy or light.  

Today's front suspensions are pretty bad for tire scrub and not that great for braking and steering performance.  Going to self-driving drive by wire introduces an opportunity to correct this historical error in steering design.  

I like that you mentioned the flex of the tricycle as misaligning the tires.  That may seem slight but when you are pedaling you feel.  Feeling is what is missing in the ICE design.  If power was measured and reported like speed and fuel tank gallons people would have a better understanding of where the energy is wasted.  Instead we are fully insulated from the feel of the energy losses.  (except on a bicycle or tricycle)  

On pedaling vehicles (human power) it is important to get the biggest wheels you can afford and pump the tires till they are ready to explode.  Also back off on the ball bearing compression a bit of a turn.  You should be able to spin the wheel up in the air and it should continue to spin for at least a minute to know you got the ball bearing tension correct and the proper light oil.  

The optimum tires for a bike will be found on the flat track bikes in the Olympics.  On three wheels you can get away with those tires on pavement instead of oak hardwood.  

Good discussion, 

Jerry Roane 

 To: "transport-innovators" <transport-innovators@googlegroups.com>

 10:51 AM, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.henderson@silvertipdesign.com>

transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to
transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.

 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "transport-innovators" group. To unsubscribe from this group and
stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to
transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

 

I agree with the poor performance of modern steering systems especially in tighter turns at lower speeds but overall the handling needs to be safe (under-steered).  Yes, you can use steer-by-wire to correct for the problems of steering anomalies but you are moving mass out board when you really need to keep the wheel ends light and you should really be reducing complexity.  This solution requires more sensors and is best used for compact packaging in small cars. Also these delicate components and electrics will experience far higher abuse at the wheel ends on rough roads.  I prefer the old Jaguar policy of moving everything in-board even the discs.  A light weight twin link steering system would allow you to move the steering drive (passive or active) back to the chassis or body of the vehicle and then it does not matter what the suspension does when reacting to road irregularities or to the braking, driving and cornering forces, the wheels always point in the right direction.  This is such a good idea that I built it into my award winning 16m semi-trailer and it works - other brands are available.

 

~Carl

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl

I would modify the safe concept you brought up.  Under-steer is only necessary when the wheels can slide.  If the physical configuration of the wheels does not allow any slide then you want neither under nor over-steer.  You just want steer the right direction.  Again it is back to the core assumptions.  I assume that rubber tires are over for the bulk of travel.  They slip and slide and don't stop well enough to save the last 40,200 lives a year.  I say stop depending on rubber against asphalt as it ain't workin'.

As for rubber tires mounted on rims that are steered I would inject the last bit of accuracy and add dynamics to the steering in a hard turn and would be different from steering that same rim into a gentle turn.  One more layer of accuracy.  I bought up the dirt track race cars as they show a visual easy to see difference between pointing the wheels down track and flat to the rolling surface but the end effect is to keep the tire rubber tread (not the rims) aligned to the intended direction of force.  On a dirt tracker you are never pointed in the direction of travel but a more aggressive turn that includes drifting.  So each tire on a dirt tracker (to a lessor degree wet asphalt) needs to be steered fully independent of all the other wheels to optimize the tread direction as it touches the Earth patch of dirt and mud.  What is great about racing is no matter the theory or incorrect theory the fastest car wins and the fastest car has the best immediate theory behind it.  As race cars evolve (monkey see monkey do) we have seen lots of attempts to improve steering.  Some improvements get banned by the race committee because they are too good.  That is unfortunate that race rules would ruin the good that can come from racing but that is the reality.  In high end racing they banned allowing the air foils from being active.  In drag racing they banned the fastest cars with different engine types because they went too fast to be safe on the tracks as built.  There are lots of examples of advances being taken away by race rules over history.  

It is rare to buy a street car that has rear wheel correction of the steering but they are out there.  It may seem like a silly idea to add another set of parts to rear steer up until you are talking cornering on asphalt.  Then the difference between grip and spin out is razor thin.  The rear steering gives that thin advantage and a tighter turning radius.  

On guideway with 7 wheels each wheel only goes on the exact path of the intended direction.  There is zero side load and thus zero scuffing.  Three sides of the beam are touched so the 3D trajectory is not left to gravity but is held precisely statically and dynamically.  Braking is not through the wheel to beam patch.  That is the fundamental difference that makes low rolling resistance practical and safe.  

Jerry Roane 

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com> wrote:

Jerry,

 

I agree with the poor performance of modern steering systems especially in tighter turns at lower speeds but overall the handling needs to be safe (under-steered).  Yes, you can use steer-by-wire to correct for the problems of steering anomalies but you are moving mass out board when you really need to keep the wheel ends light and you should really be reducing complexity.  This solution requires more sensors and is best used for compact packaging in small cars. Also these delicate components and electrics will experience far higher abuse at the wheel ends on rough roads.  I prefer the old Jaguar policy of moving everything in-board even the discs.  A light weight twin link steering system would allow you to move the steering drive (passive or active) back to the chassis or body of the vehicle and then it does not matter what the suspension does when reacting to road irregularities or to the braking, driving and cornering forces, the wheels always point in the right direction.  This is such a good idea that I built it into my award winning 16m semi-trailer and it works - other brands are available.

 

~Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-innovators@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Roane
Sent: 28 January 2018 15:05
To: transport-innovators
Subject: Re: [t-i] What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?

Carl

You bring up wheel alignment to the intended path.  This is an important tweak to improve all cars and motorcycle's efficiency.  Pointing the wheels in the precise direction is not presently done in front end steering elements.  They approximate straight but do not achieve exact wheel pointing.  I suggest in the self-diving mode it will be easier to remove this error in how front ends are constructed and that the electronics can properly point the wheels in the exact direction of intended travel.  

if you look at the tires on a dirt track race car you will notice the tires are pointed wonky (a technical term)   They do this to compensate for all the slipping and sliding that it going on but if you were to drive those same cars set up that way on asphalt they would eat up a set of tires in a few hundred miles.  Not only is the caster can camber set up heavily conflicting the steering angles change as the steering wheel is turned.  The basic geometry of the drag link and steering rods is intentionally not correct to match the arc of the travel of the car.  The tires always rub off on the pavement in a parking garage as is evidenced by the black scuff marks on the concrete.  With self-driving cars no longer will you steer with just one steering wheel but rather you will steer each front wheel separately.  This would allow for the tire to roll EXACTLY on the intended arc of the car.  This will be true whether the weight in the car is heavy or light.  

Today's front suspensions are pretty bad for tire scrub and not that great for braking and steering performance.  Going to self-driving drive by wire introduces an opportunity to correct this historical error in steering design.  

I like that you mentioned the flex of the tricycle as misaligning the tires.  That may seem slight but when you are pedaling you feel.  Feeling is what is missing in the ICE design.  If power was measured and reported like speed and fuel tank gallons people would have a better understanding of where the energy is wasted.  Instead we are fully insulated from the feel of the energy losses.  (except on a bicycle or tricycle)  

On pedaling vehicles (human power) it is important to get the biggest wheels you can afford and pump the tires till they are ready to explode.  Also back off on the ball bearing compression a bit of a turn.  You should be able to spin the wheel up in the air and it should continue to spin for at least a minute to know you got the ball bearing tension correct and the proper light oil.  

The optimum tires for a bike will be found on the flat track bikes in the Olympics.  On three wheels you can get away with those tires on pavement instead of oak hardwood.  

Good discussion, 

Jerry Roane 

transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to
transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.

 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "transport-innovators" group. To unsubscribe from this group and
stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to
transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

 

I like the fact that your vehicle holds on to the track.  But all tyres slip (or in the case of steel tyres on steel rails it is termed creep) in order to generate the side forces needed to corner on a road surface. By contrast the running surfaces of your track are inclined so that both the vertical and the lateral forces on each side of the guideway will induce differing amounts of creep in opposing sets of wheels.  Active steering under these conditions will be a challenge and likely not even necessary.  At higher speeds on road tyres it is better dynamically to steer the front wheels and at low speeds, rear steer does improve manoeuvrability.  The i-track appears to be about the limit for small light-weight rear-steered vehicles.

 

I agree with the technology advancements sometimes being hindered by new rules.  My first patent was a mechanism for trials bikes.  As you will likely know, the sport is all about control and balance while negotiating rocky terrain on a motor bike.  In the 1980's the top riders were leaving the novice riders out of the running, discouraging new entrants into the sport.  And the one key skill that was difficult to master was using the brakes in combination with bouncing the bike backwards, possibly up hill, to get the front wheel out from between rocks.  So at university I designed and built a reversing clutch into the rear hub of a trials bike (not a road bike) and modified the rear brake pedal to be double acting.  A point or two penalty could have been applied to the score so that novice riders could still compete head to head with the top riders and so gain places and confidence.  But before I could develop the system officials changed the rules and gave a full five point penalty for moving backwards even slightly.  The new rules killed my patent and changed the sport, it is now more like motocross.

 

https://www.redbull.com/au-en/trial-bike-gravity-defying-videos

 

~Carl

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Carl  

You do not have a proper image in your head of TriTrack's guideway wheel configuration.  Here is a photo of a plastic printed model that may help.  

The force vector diagram of this configuration has no side load on the tires (tyres) The rotational forces zero out against each other.  The wheels roll straight with no side load and so no side slip.  There is one traction wheel that does get longitudinal slip but no side slip.  The patent describes how that capstan wheel can also be a linear motor so there is no tyre that slips at all in the linear motor propelled version.  The amount of slip of the capstan is dynamically controlled so it is minimized by applying appropriate down-force to that one wheel (tyre)

I am not sure where steering came up in your imagination while on the guideway.  It has no choice but to follow the exact path of the three 60 degree opposed rolling surfaces.  If the plane of the three axles were to get bent that would  be the only way to get the wheels to slip or creep.  That plane is fixed in the molding of the body shell so not likely to get bent.  There is no steering on the guideway.  You get on at the start of that piece of metal and you exit the opposite end of that piece of metal.  

On the surface street all bets are off.  The steering sucks while on the street I freely admit.  I do not intend for you to drive much on the street as there are few advantages on the ground.  The front suspension is a torsion bar arrangement so the camber is wonky depending on how much desert you had that day.  The tyres are going to wear funny but I do not care.  In the self-driving mode with drive by wire the wheels will be properly pointed down the intended path.  In the manual steering version the wheel direction will be an approximation of where they need to point.  The front tires are a wear item as they are on any regular car.  Tread patterns wear non-uniformly on front tires for many reasons.  The front alignment is modified to balance the tread wear but they will always wear the outer tread more than the inner inner edge of the tread from cornering.  On the street TriTrack has the same flaws as all the other cars on asphalt.  On guideway it excels.  

Let me know if this explains the lack of creep.  

Jerry Roane 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com> wrote:

Jerry,

 

I like the fact that your vehicle holds on to the track.  But all tyres slip (or in the case of steel tyres on steel rails it is termed creep) in order to generate the side forces needed to corner on a road surface. By contrast the running surfaces of your track are inclined so that both the vertical and the lateral forces on each side of the guideway will induce differing amounts of creep in opposing sets of wheels.  Active steering under these conditions will be a challenge and likely not even necessary.  At higher speeds on road tyres it is better dynamically to steer the front wheels and at low speeds, rear steer does improve manoeuvrability.  The i-track appears to be about the limit for small light-weight rear-steered vehicles.

 

I agree with the technology advancements sometimes being hindered by new rules.  My first patent was a mechanism for trials bikes.  As you will likely know, the sport is all about control and balance while negotiating rocky terrain on a motor bike.  In the 1980's the top riders were leaving the novice riders out of the running, discouraging new entrants into the sport.  And the one key skill that was difficult to master was using the brakes in combination with bouncing the bike backwards, possibly up hill, to get the front wheel out from between rocks.  So at university I designed and built a reversing clutch into the rear hub of a trials bike (not a road bike) and modified the rear brake pedal to be double acting.  A point or two penalty could have been applied to the score so that novice riders could still compete head to head with the top riders and so gain places and confidence.  But before I could develop the system officials changed the rules and gave a full five point penalty for moving backwards even slightly.  The new rules killed my patent and changed the sport, it is now more like motocross.

 

https://www.redbull.com/au-en/trial-bike-gravity-defying-videos

 

~Carl

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-innovators@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Roane

Sent: 28 January 2018 21:14
To: transport-innovators
Subject: Re: [t-i] What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?

Carl

I would modify the safe concept you brought up.  Under-steer is only necessary when the wheels can slide.  If the physical configuration of the wheels does not allow any slide then you want neither under nor over-steer.  You just want steer the right direction.  Again it is back to the core assumptions.  I assume that rubber tires are over for the bulk of travel.  They slip and slide and don't stop well enough to save the last 40,200 lives a year.  I say stop depending on rubber against asphalt as it ain't workin'.

As for rubber tires mounted on rims that are steered I would inject the last bit of accuracy and add dynamics to the steering in a hard turn and would be different from steering that same rim into a gentle turn.  One more layer of accuracy.  I bought up the dirt track race cars as they show a visual easy to see difference between pointing the wheels down track and flat to the rolling surface but the end effect is to keep the tire rubber tread (not the rims) aligned to the intended direction of force.  On a dirt tracker you are never pointed in the direction of travel but a more aggressive turn that includes drifting.  So each tire on a dirt tracker (to a lessor degree wet asphalt) needs to be steered fully independent of all the other wheels to optimize the tread direction as it touches the Earth patch of dirt and mud.  What is great about racing is no matter the theory or incorrect theory the fastest car wins and the fastest car has the best immediate theory behind it.  As race cars evolve (monkey see monkey do) we have seen lots of attempts to improve steering.  Some improvements get banned by the race committee because they are too good.  That is unfortunate that race rules would ruin the good that can come from racing but that is the reality.  In high end racing they banned allowing the air foils from being active.  In drag racing they banned the fastest cars with different engine types because they went too fast to be safe on the tracks as built.  There are lots of examples of advances being taken away by race rules over history.  

It is rare to buy a street car that has rear wheel correction of the steering but they are out there.  It may seem like a silly idea to add another set of parts to rear steer up until you are talking cornering on asphalt.  Then the difference between grip and spin out is razor thin.  The rear steering gives that thin advantage and a tighter turning radius.  

On guideway with 7 wheels each wheel only goes on the exact path of the intended direction.  There is zero side load and thus zero scuffing.  Three sides of the beam are touched so the 3D trajectory is not left to gravity but is held precisely statically and dynamically.  Braking is not through the wheel to beam patch.  That is the fundamental difference that makes low rolling resistance practical and safe.  

Jerry Roane 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Carl Henderson (SD)]

Jerry,

 

I had pictured a sleek body carrying an offset mass travelling at high speed on a relatively stiff, gently curving guideway supported on poles, a compliant six wheel bogie with suspension and a drive wheel.  This sequence of force diagrams includes real world dynamics, just like Walters bike.

 

~Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Roane
Sent: 31 January 2018 03:28
To: transport-innovators
Subject: Re: [t-i] What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?

Carl  

You do not have a proper image in your head of TriTrack's guideway wheel configuration.  Here is a photo of a plastic printed model that may help.  

 

The force vector diagram of this configuration has no side load on the tires (tyres) The rotational forces zero out against each other.  The wheels roll straight with no side load and so no side slip.  There is one traction wheel that does get longitudinal slip but no side slip.  The patent describes how that capstan wheel can also be a linear motor so there is no tyre that slips at all in the linear motor propelled version.  The amount of slip of the capstan is dynamically controlled so it is minimized by applying appropriate down-force to that one wheel (tyre)

I am not sure where steering came up in your imagination while on the guideway.  It has no choice but to follow the exact path of the three 60 degree opposed rolling surfaces.  If the plane of the three axles were to get bent that would  be the only way to get the wheels to slip or creep.  That plane is fixed in the molding of the body shell so not likely to get bent.  There is no steering on the guideway.  You get on at the start of that piece of metal and you exit the opposite end of that piece of metal.  

On the surface street all bets are off.  The steering sucks while on the street I freely admit.  I do not intend for you to drive much on the street as there are few advantages on the ground.  The front suspension is a torsion bar arrangement so the camber is wonky depending on how much desert you had that day.  The tyres are going to wear funny but I do not care.  In the self-driving mode with drive by wire the wheels will be properly pointed down the intended path.  In the manual steering version the wheel direction will be an approximation of where they need to point.  The front tires are a wear item as they are on any regular car.  Tread patterns wear non-uniformly on front tires for many reasons.  The front alignment is modified to balance the tread wear but they will always wear the outer tread more than the inner inner edge of the tread from cornering.  On the street TriTrack has the same flaws as all the other cars on asphalt.  On guideway it excels.  

Let me know if this explains the lack of creep.  

Jerry Roane 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com> wrote:

Jerry,

 

I like the fact that your vehicle holds on to the track.  But all tyres slip (or in the case of steel tyres on steel rails it is termed creep) in order to generate the side forces needed to corner on a road surface. By contrast the running surfaces of your track are inclined so that both the vertical and the lateral forces on each side of the guideway will induce differing amounts of creep in opposing sets of wheels.  Active steering under these conditions will be a challenge and likely not even necessary.  At higher speeds on road tyres it is better dynamically to steer the front wheels and at low speeds, rear steer does improve manoeuvrability.  The i-track appears to be about the limit for small light-weight rear-steered vehicles.

 

I agree with the technology advancements sometimes being hindered by new rules.  My first patent was a mechanism for trials bikes.  As you will likely know, the sport is all about control and balance while negotiating rocky terrain on a motor bike.  In the 1980's the top riders were leaving the novice riders out of the running, discouraging new entrants into the sport.  And the one key skill that was difficult to master was using the brakes in combination with bouncing the bike backwards, possibly up hill, to get the front wheel out from between rocks.  So at university I designed and built a reversing clutch into the rear hub of a trials bike (not a road bike) and modified the rear brake pedal to be double acting.  A point or two penalty could have been applied to the score so that novice riders could still compete head to head with the top riders and so gain places and confidence.  But before I could develop the system officials changed the rules and gave a full five point penalty for moving backwards even slightly.  The new rules killed my patent and changed the sport, it is now more like motocross.

 

https://www.redbull.com/au-en/trial-bike-gravity-defying-videos

 

~Carl

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-innovators@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Roane

Sent: 28 January 2018 21:14
To: transport-innovators
Subject: Re: [t-i] What is the relationship between IC auto speed and fuel consumption?

Carl

I would modify the safe concept you brought up.  Under-steer is only necessary when the wheels can slide.  If the physical configuration of the wheels does not allow any slide then you want neither under nor over-steer.  You just want steer the right direction.  Again it is back to the core assumptions.  I assume that rubber tires are over for the bulk of travel.  They slip and slide and don't stop well enough to save the last 40,200 lives a year.  I say stop depending on rubber against asphalt as it ain't workin'.

As for rubber tires mounted on rims that are steered I would inject the last bit of accuracy and add dynamics to the steering in a hard turn and would be different from steering that same rim into a gentle turn.  One more layer of accuracy.  I bought up the dirt track race cars as they show a visual easy to see difference between pointing the wheels down track and flat to the rolling surface but the end effect is to keep the tire rubber tread (not the rims) aligned to the intended direction of force.  On a dirt tracker you are never pointed in the direction of travel but a more aggressive turn that includes drifting.  So each tire on a dirt tracker (to a lessor degree wet asphalt) needs to be steered fully independent of all the other wheels to optimize the tread direction as it touches the Earth patch of dirt and mud.  What is great about racing is no matter the theory or incorrect theory the fastest car wins and the fastest car has the best immediate theory behind it.  As race cars evolve (monkey see monkey do) we have seen lots of attempts to improve steering.  Some improvements get banned by the race committee because they are too good.  That is unfortunate that race rules would ruin the good that can come from racing but that is the reality.  In high end racing they banned allowing the air foils from being active.  In drag racing they banned the fastest cars with different engine types because they went too fast to be safe on the tracks as built.  There are lots of examples of advances being taken away by race rules over history.  

It is rare to buy a street car that has rear wheel correction of the steering but they are out there.  It may seem like a silly idea to add another set of parts to rear steer up until you are talking cornering on asphalt.  Then the difference between grip and spin out is razor thin.  The rear steering gives that thin advantage and a tighter turning radius.  

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruce A. McHenry]

Hi All,

It has been a long time since I participated in this group so first of all, hello to everybody. I credit this group (and Dr. Schneider especially) for teaching me about PRT and particularly dual-mode PRT, energy economics, and urban planning in the early 00's. Around 2005, I started to propose passenger roadtrains that form and disperse while in motion. I employed Tomasso Gecchelin who developed excellent CAD renderings: https://youtu.be/KczzacodT68?t=7 I let him go, and he got funding in Dubai for a mock-up of bus modules: https://www.next-future-mobility.com/

For the long-term evolution of the highways, I am thinking now about cars that retract their tires and settle onto steel wheels that balance on a single rail. 

Relative to today's cars, the advantages will be obvious to everyone in this group: 1) high MPG and MPG-e, 2) ground circuit for power, 3) no bouncing between two rails so smooth ride, 3) fewer components relative to other dual-mode including Carl's BladeRunner (which inspired this approach). 4) easy switching. I hope there would also be low infrastructure costs since tram rails are well understood and widely deployed, and much lower side forces on the rail so lower maintenance costs.

The enabling tech is digital balancing, like Segways, now seen in many personal vehicles and toys. In a dual-mode car, the mechanicals may include: 

1. wheels wide enough to balance by steering like a bicycle (or unicycle)
2. lateral movement of the wheel(s)
3. movable counterweight
4. ailerons

What are your thoughts about feasibility, and optimization?

Best to all, 
Bruce McHenry
+1 650 656 0060

 To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

 10:51 AM, Carl Henderson (SD) <carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com>

[Jerry Roane]

Bruce

I noticed your mileage claim in the video is obsolete.  The Tesla Model 3 for 2022 gets 147 mpgE on rubber tires rolling on asphalt.  Something to consider when making improvements in your next video.

Jerry Roane 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/CACm-%2BD1V-1nGvcKi2kCRjEFrzjsZ_BHmFrke1TjRQhgYvCAcSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce A. McHenry]

Thanks, Jerry. Good point but of course, MPG-e assumes the full BTU value of gasoline to kWh so gives numbers that are fantastic, and fantastically misleading. And common. Too late to go back and edit that video from 2014 but if I were to do it again, yes, I'd probably give a nod to MPG-e. 

Relative to powering the highways, putting a half-ton of batteries in every car is far from efficient. That's a lot of weight to carry, and there are charge/discharge losses. How much is that? I've seen figures as high as 40%. And it's impractical because you must stop to recharge. And there is nowhere near enough charging infrastructure. 

If instead of building charging stations for 300 million vehicles, we powered the highways then a typical car would not need more than 20 kWh for 50 miles. But if you are going to power the lanes then you might as well set them up for dual-mode as well. As far as I know, using a single rail embedded in the road is novel. It should provide a very smooth ride, and a very energy-efficient one, especially for the larger kinds of vehicles that consumers prefer. Who wouldn't want a sleeper car that can deliver you to destinations 400-500 miles away while sleeping comfortably at an MPGe around 300? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/CAEsQt-dNek3BuZ5OfGvY1N1yZPedSvcX1OaaE5FbKH7UOPh%3DSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce A. McHenry]

The roadtrains need to be physically connected for several reasons. it will take a long time to power interstates and large metro area roads. During that interim, we will need to have ICE vehicles that serve as locomotives. When the roads get powered for Roadway Single Rail Dual-Mode (RSR-DM, now we have an acronym), the pantograph seems likely to be designed just like existing ones for trains and contact a live wire that is 6 meters above the lane. That pantograph will add significant complexity and weight and should be shared across the roadtrain with mechanical couplings having electrical connections. 

Then there will always be remote roads that will never be powered so we will always want to have ICE vehicles that serve as locomotives for physically connected vehicles. If also in the snow belt, every vehicle in the roadtrain must power its own wheels so ICE locomotives will need to generate electricity instead of just driving wheels. 

[Bruce McHenry]

Jerry, 

Thanks for pointing that out. The MPGe figures for electric cars are based on converting 100% of the heat energy in a gallon of gas into electricity. It's marketing, not engineering. 

It's easier to cheat in the same way than educate about cheating so MPGe it is. 

In the scenario of this subject head, steel wheels on a steel rail will reduce rolling friction by 90%. Then aero drag dominates. That gets cut by at least 50% by streamlining followers and having an average train length >4 cars. In terms of those MPGe numbers then we'd be somewhere around 400 MPGe for a sleeper car that would carry you 500 miles overnight. 

Best, 

Bruce

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/CAEsQt-dNek3BuZ5OfGvY1N1yZPedSvcX1OaaE5FbKH7UOPh%3DSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Bruce

Here are some data points for you.  A VW bus is about the same shape as those depicted in your link.  They have a Cd of .78.  

The high speed train was modeled and tested at a university near Washington DC under givernment funding and they measured the following high speed rail cars at an added Cd of .1 for each additional car added to a high speed train.  So a lead cabin would be Cd = roughly .78 and the following 4 cars at .1 each or .4+.78=Cd 1.18  A revolved double parabola shape has a windtunnel measured  Cd of 0.07 so a five vehicle set of vehicles would have a combined Cd =0.07*5=.35  

.35<1.18

The images imply that these will be going the speed limit so tire friction is still minor whether they are rubber or steel.  At 75 mph tire energy is roughly 34% of the total on a typical sedan.  So changing out the wheels can only get some of that 34% back.  At slower speeds like say 40mph that same sedan tire energy is 64% of the total. All these things are nonlinearly dependent on the expected travel speed.  Wait time has value and must not be ignored when comparing concepts.  If you just sit and wait for the right batch of connected cars to roll past before you join, that lost time's value must be added to the cost of fuel for that trip.  

Jerry Roane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/CACm-%2BD3_D%2BVPkD09AJ1Z1GHp_entjWyYGTYMfTDmzOVUZ1vPHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Carl Henderson - SD]

Hi Bruce,

Steel on steel is a poor interface for traction and braking forces of light vehicles and with a little lubrication (from oil or leaves on the track) it would be lethal for cornering.  Both tritrack and RUF address this with a guideway and a tunnel through the vehicle. 

The lateral movement of the wheels, the counterweight (batteries) and the ailerons are all technologies being deployed to address the challenges of narrow vehicles (<1m: I-Road, Triggo, Carver, IEV-XX, Tango).

Concept suggestion: With just two or three seater narrow vehicles you could readily create split-lane zones throughout urban areas and provide an additional narrow lane for cargo bikes and cyclists.  This is in addition to elevated PRT stations attached to buildings and even BRT corridors on the ground for use during rush hour (refuse collection and large deliveries at other times).  There would also be a four fold increase in parking.

I have recently created a personal website and added an open-source traffic simulator (link below) which deals with vehicle efficiencies.

Kind regards

~Carl

Carl Henderson
HND, BEng(Hons), MSc, MIRTE, MSOE

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry Ford

M: 07935 486044
E: carl.he...@silvertipdesign.com
W: www.silvertipdesign.co.uk

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/CACm-%2BD3_D%2BVPkD09AJ1Z1GHp_entjWyYGTYMfTDmzOVUZ1vPHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Palle R Jensen]

Dear Friends

 

It may interest you that I am still active with RUF.

 

In order to ensure the quality of my arguments, I have started an evaluation process of the RUF concept.

I am in a communication with Danish Technical University regarding the attached evaluation scheme.

It is a short version of a long list of all my arguments.

 

Kind regards

 

Palle R Jensen

[Charl Du toit]

Interesting to see these concepts surface again after all these years...

My FlexiTrain notion is still on my mind, too.

This coupled small vehicles at central locations to make platoons, and is classed as Dual-mode. 

What has changed in 25 years is the notion of self-driving vehicles, and that answers nicely the problem of the Last Mile.

I had some numbers regarding platooning efficiencies, based on some post-grad work at a US university, which I don't recall.

Palle, your Claim 3 has some interesting stats, where do you source the drag figures from?

Regards

Charl du Toit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/1UbpmvWcNl.2PtI0zFzKtL%40ejers.

[Palle R Jensen]

Dear Charl

 

The curves shown, was the result of a project made by a group of international students, who worked on calculating air resistance and measuring it in a Wind tunnel for comparison.

They were very bright students and they were Lucky to be part of a report about RUF made by the Discovery Channel.

 

The important thing to notice is, that the vehicles have to drive very close in order to obtain a powerful reduction.

Autonomous driving in cars on roads will not benefit much. RUF platooning will !

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/1697870266.756981.1653984177111%40webmail.xtra.co.nz.

[Charl Du toit]

Thanks Palle, you are quite correct, there is a well-defined correlation between drag and  platooned vehicle spacing.

I found my original source! (Alas the link is 20 years old and no longer works)

Maintaining the fixed (very close) distance is one of the reasons FlexiTrain required mechanical coupling of platooned vehicles.  Together with added crashworthiness, which was the primary concern. 

 

Regards

Charl du Toit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/1UbpmwQgOc.16D0apdVHC7%40ejers.

[tyler]

See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359183359_Improved_Bus_Service_on_Ten_Times_Less_Energy Section 1.2 Energy to Move a Land Vehicle.

[Jerry Roane]

fueleconomy.gov is full of shit.  This is Jimmy Carter bullshit that never was measured but merely assumed.  The 55 mph highway is an insane waste of our most valuable resource, time.  For their graph to be anything close to correct they have to pick one specific car model with the same transmission rear end ratio and tire diameter.  My Toyota Prius I once had blew this lie wide open.  It would cruise at 80 all day long getting much better mileage than their bullshit graph showing 20 mpg.  Besides, they should really be using mpgE.  It is amazing how no one challenges lies when the government publishes them.  Sheep!  

Jerry Roane

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/6b9a9bcb-6240-4e07-96f0-f5083dd55127n%40googlegroups.com.

[tyler]

Increased energy need at higher speed is real. The physics are in section 1.2 of my paper.

[Jerry Roane]

That part is true.  The US fed graph is only one vehicle design.  Assumed aerodynamics are pathetic and from the 1970s.  Start with a Cd of 0.07 and a rolling drag coefficient of .004 and redo the math.  Do not assume old cars will be in the future.  Low drag allows for high speed even though there is a velocity shared term in the vehicle equation.  Squared is not as awesome as is being assumed.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/transport-innovators/4b92a9c1-28d6-4972-830f-91fec10afa91n%40googlegroups.com.