The USA Needs a National Hybrid Retrofit Program

[donee]

Hi All,

I am trying to understand why people would do this to a car that is new enough they do not want to mess with it, and so old that the investment wont be worth it due to the legacy repair issues? And this looses allot of the synergy that reduced the costs of the Prius. In the end the total cost of ownership is just way off the charts.

That leaves a very small window of vehicle age.

Now, putting this into a new car with a reduced engine size that is another thing. Somebody could put together a Geo-Metro style car and add these 30 HP of battery drive. This way an auto-stop system could be implemented, and auxiliary systems powered off the battery.

On Cleanmpg.com (which I have enormous difficulty posting on, and usually loose the post due to incredibly short timeouts) there is discussion regarding controls. I think a computer could be setup to easily sense brake pedal pressure, and use that to control regen, but in a retrofit one is still using the friction brakes. And the operating costs synergy is not as significant as with a Prius, or other ground-up hybrid design. A fuel flow meter might be used to automatically control the motor power output level.

The wheel motor or axle mounted motors are a good idea, because it gives independantly controlable torque to each wheel. It also eliminates gear losses between the motor and the wheel. Which are significant. Think if the Prius had two MG2's on either side of the transmission housing, hooked to the output shafts of the differential with the brakes?! Kinda like a FWD hybrid version of the famous Jaguar rear-end. Since the brakes last as long the axles, now, this is totally practical.

The problem with this though, is motor diameter. Which has to be large due to the lack of gearing. Which is why Wheel motors are commonly proposed, as there is a large diameter space available behind the brake. Double stacking is a possibility to reduce diameter, but that quadruples motor assembly costs.

The G3 Prius actually went the other way, by inserting gearing between MG2 and the rest of the drive train. This allows for a smaller diameter motor, and lighter transmission.

So, there is probably some devil-in-the-details pushing things the other way.


These things might be a good way to get a AWD Prius though.

[donee]

Hi All,

I do not buy the 3000 dollar cost. Its more likely going to be 5000. Remember the Prius battery cost $2400 retail. 4 motors, and the cost to put them on the car, and the cable sets are going to be $2000 easy. Remember these are sealed assemblies, and your probably going to need custom replacement hubs to mount both the motor and brake to the suspension. Volumes are just not going to be that high for retrofits.

The Prius cost less than its battery costs over a standard car, because of the synergies that remove legacy costs out of the platform. This is something that is being overlooked. In a retrofit, those legacy costs are either still there, or need to be replaced (starters/brake service, but probably not alternator - as that function can be built into the inverters set).

[DaveinOlyWA]

Originally Posted by donee

Hi All,

I do not buy the 3000 dollar cost. Its more likely going to be 5000. Remember the Prius battery cost $2400 retail. 4 motors, and the cost to put them on the car, and the cable sets are going to be $2000 easy. Remember these are sealed assemblies, and your probably going to need custom replacement hubs to mount both the motor and brake to the suspension. Volumes are just not going to be that high for retrofits.

Originally Posted by donee

Hi All,

I am trying to understand why people would do this to a car that is new enough they do not want to mess with it, and so old that the investment wont be worth it due to the legacy repair issues? And this looses allot of the synergy that reduced the costs of the Prius. In the end the total cost of ownership is just way off the charts.

That leaves a very small window of vehicle age.

Now, putting this into a new car with a reduced engine size that is another thing. Somebody could put together a Geo-Metro style car and add these 30 HP of battery drive. This way an auto-stop system could be implemented, and auxiliary systems powered off the battery.

On Cleanmpg.com (which I have enormous difficulty posting on, and usually loose the post due to incredibly short timeouts) there is discussion regarding controls. I think a computer could be setup to easily sense brake pedal pressure, and use that to control regen, but in a retrofit one is still using the friction brakes. And the operating costs synergy is not as significant as with a Prius, or other ground-up hybrid design. A fuel flow meter might be used to automatically control the motor power output level.

The wheel motor or axle mounted motors are a good idea, because it gives independantly controlable torque to each wheel. It also eliminates gear losses between the motor and the wheel. Which are significant. Think if the Prius had two MG2's on either side of the transmission housing, hooked to the output shafts of the differential with the brakes?! Kinda like a FWD hybrid version of the famous Jaguar rear-end. Since the brakes last as long the axles, now, this is totally practical.

The problem with this though, is motor diameter. Which has to be large due to the lack of gearing. Which is why Wheel motors are commonly proposed, as there is a large diameter space available behind the brake. Double stacking is a possibility to reduce diameter, but that quadruples motor assembly costs.

The G3 Prius actually went the other way, by inserting gearing between MG2 and the rest of the drive train. This allows for a smaller diameter motor, and lighter transmission.

So, there is probably some devil-in-the-details pushing things the other way.


These things might be a good way to get a AWD Prius though.

if using conventional financing, the cost would be unrealistic. but this has to be subsidized by Uncle Sam and why shouldn't it be...120 million gallons saved PER DAY is a program worth paying for.

the subsidy would only be one time install cost and there would be a rather large market since it would cover anyone who cannot afford $15,000 for a new economy car (if you can get one that cheap!!). $3-5K is way more affordable and i think there is a lot of people who would jump at the chance to increase their gas mileage 50 to 150%.

as far as how smart it would be to do, there are a TON of cars out there that are 5-10 years old under 100,000 miles that could conceivably drive another 5-10 years with only routine maintenance. sure, major repairs happen and that does increase with age, but a $3000 repair is still way cheaper than financing a new car

[ShellyT]

Then there is the question of what hybrid system will receive the government backing. Would a hydraulic retrofit be elligible? The problem will currant govt backing of ethanol means other alternatives, likely better, are getting pushed to the side. If feasable, but done wrong, a retrofit program can cause harm in the long run.

[Rokeby]

ShellyT,

You are correct in pointing out that any gov't sponsored program
would have to be very carefully crafted to avoid built-in inequities.
I'm surely not competent to foresee all the potential pitfalls.

That said, I feel strongly that in general this is a valid idea for
consideration given that sure as the sun rises, in the short term gas
prices will rise again, and in the long term there are limits on the
availability/accessablity of cheap gas.

For now, this might be a purely intellectual exercise for Prius owners.
Still, i am heartened to see folks with the necessary technical ability
working on another "thinking outside the box" approach that can
potentially help the many, many folks who absolutely need a car to
keep/find employment yet cannot come up with even $12K for a five
year old, second-hand Prius.

[bredekamp]

Analog TV signals require more energy to broadcast than digital TV signals. The digital transmitter is more "green" in that it uses less energy.

NTSC TV uses AM for the video. Most of the energy is in the carrier where none of the information is.

[donee]

Originally Posted by bredekamp

Analog TV signals require more energy to broadcast than digital TV signals. The digital transmitter is more "green" in that it uses less energy.

NTSC TV uses AM for the video. Most of the energy is in the carrier where none of the information is.

And NTSC requires about 50 dB S/N ratio to be perfectly clean, whereas ATSC only needs about 20 dB. Right there, per channel broadcast is a 1000:1 improvement. In practice however, even a 20 dB NTSC channel is watchable, but a 15 dB ATSC is not. So, in the end the stations are down about 10:1 in power/per channel.

The ABC affiliate here is only at 4700 watts right now, sending 3 channels on their original NTSC allocation of RF channel 7. Which is about a 30:1 drop in their broadcast power per channel. And it works most of the time. Although, they may be allowed to go up in power to fill in some of the poor spots in the coverage area.

[bredekamp]

Originally Posted by donee

And NTSC requires about 50 dB S/N ratio to be perfectly clean, whereas ATSC only needs about 20 dB. Right there, per channel broadcast is a 1000:1 improvement. In practice however, even a 20 dB NTSC channel is watchable, but a 15 dB ATSC is not. So, in the end the stations are down about 10:1 in power/per channel.

The ABC affiliate here is only at 4700 watts right now, sending 3 channels on their original NTSC allocation of RF channel 7. Which is about a 30:1 drop in their broadcast power per channel. And it works most of the time. Although, they may be allowed to go up in power to fill in some of the poor spots in the coverage area.

and that's the problem. Analog degrades gracefully where digital is an all or nothing situation. Talking of picture quality, I have a digital satellite box and I must say that some of the channels are so overcompressed as to be almost unwatchable. I saw the same thing in Switzerland on a CableCom digibox. My point; some of the digital channels makes me yearn for a nice high S/N ratio analog picture.

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by bredekamp

and that's the problem. Analog degrades gracefully where digital is an all or nothing situation. Talking of picture quality, I have a digital satellite box and I must say that some of the channels are so overcompressed as to be almost unwatchable. I saw the same thing in Switzerland on a CableCom digibox. My point; some of the digital channels makes me yearn for a nice high S/N ratio analog picture.

Over-compression isn't a requirement of digital, nor is a weak transmitter signal. Both of these are business decisions emphasizing cost over quality.

Tom

[bredekamp]

Originally Posted by qbee42

Over-compression isn't a requirement of digital, nor is a weak transmitter signal. Both of these are business decisions emphasizing cost over quality.

Tom

Exactly!