"The SHEP (stored hydraulic energy propulsion) system captures energy used during braking and recycles the energy back into the vehicle at the time it needs it most; when accelerating from a dead stop. At this time, the engine is performing least efficiently, burning the most fuel, and emitting the most pollutants."
This above statement, although a widely held misconception even by people who call themselves engineers is NOT TRUE. It is a complete lie. An engine is MOST efficient when accelerating from a dead stop! This is subject of widespread tests going back to the 1950's or earlier where this has been very adequately established. When taking off from a dead stop, you are SAVING gas, not wasting it. You vehicle is getting its BEST gas mileage. Surprised? Disbelieving? Astounded? Yes, I believe that would cover it. But can you prove me wrong? Well, would you like to bet everything you own. Seriously? If you disagree, put up serious cash. I will take you on.
So what is going on with the SHEP, which is regenerative braking, which FORD does NOT have a patent on? Simple, you are recycling braking energy. It is better to do it with electricity and use electric drive, as that is in principle doing the same thing, and even better. By smoothing out the power usage cycle organically, you do away with "constant speed" losses due to engine inefficiency at medium torque/power curves. The power itself -- (notwithstanding the equality due to the speed and the bad efficiency of the vehicle which is equal for both plants) -- is generated under 'constant acceleration' of the generation of electricity.. this make the ENGINE most efficient. But FORD cannot patent that.
Constant speed, no matter who you have heard it from, or what engineering group, is only more efficient if ALL the energy is going into USEFUL work. Which can only be defined as acceleration, in a moving vehicle, as all coasting movement is overcoming friction. In this mode, efficiency, which is power per mile, let's say, drops drastically. The curve of where the work is going to get its miles is MOST inefficient at 60MPH. There ALL your power is going into -- the wind friction which is starting to exponentiate, and the drive train and rolling friction which on one side is getting big too, as the tires heat up. But worse still, it has to be overcome at that speed, by an engine that is at its least efficient at that point in the power curve. Both the motor and the vehicle must accelerate to reach max efficiency and that acceleration must go into mostly movement from x to y. Not into overcoming internal engine friction, or external vehicle friction. It is the amount of each or the ratio of fuel versus friction versus miles, we are saying is worse relatively at that speed, not that it is not present to a degree at all other speeds and conditions. It (internal freewheeling inefficiencies) are far less present in making the power in a generator as far as the motor is concerned, so we can save on that side.
It (constant speed) "works" in standing motors to do smooth constant power output. Why? Because their energy is being used up constantly for USEFUL work that is NOT dissipated on friction which is the waster of "efficiency". NOT so in a constantly moving vehicle. Amazing? Well true. That is partly why if you used a flywheel to generate all motive energy for the whole trip, you would be getting maximal efficiency! Contradiction? No. Go back over it. It takes time. The key is in where the work goes and Newton's laws. Acceleration for moving body is the only useful work. All else is gliding and friction. So why did the auto makers not want to invest in low friction aerodynamic vehicles? Buckminster Fuller is an idiot? It's impractical? It does not save much? No, only about 40%. Hell make a truck streamlined and you save 50 or more%. If you could accelerate all the way to end of the trip, you would get the same effect as the flywheel. Or if you turn your engine off at halfway and glide the rest after constant acceleration. Regeneration interfers with gliding, so you do not do it, even if you have to start up again. MOST efficiency. BUT for average driving, regeneration fits the braking cycle that most drivers use.
The trick is how to turn both concepts into a saving. Acclerate the vehicle or the flywheel you get the same effect. You do. I will not back down. But accelerate the vehicle and you have some losses when you slow down that is not recovered.
All this points to the real winner being the gas electric Volkswagen of 1958. It made the best numbers of anybody. And it still ain't beat. Go to Pop Sci and Pop mechanics. It's there. Ignored by the big 3 for 40 years. Unpatentable. And you can build it yourself.
My father was an engineer who turned all these concepts into how he drove. He used to cycle his driving. Where he could so he glided the car with the engine off. He never ran a radio as it was a huge enery waster. He ran low HP diesel as it got fantastic mileage. He never slowed down on curves or where he could dodge, as it allowed him to use maximal, none engine braking glide. (again not a contradiction.. you have to really think about it gliding is better than regeneration if you can do it. with engine off.)
We used to get an average of 40 MPG by careful calculation, of mileage and fuel consumption as a test over 15 years. City and HWY. On the HWY we got 55. Take that big 3. All the mileage mavens. I can do it with conventional vehicles, sedans. And no road and track 2 week BS, or estimates from top of head.. and with real engineering.
And you know what. You could do significantly better. Perhaps 75. And fuel cell. 100. Miles per gallon. What is that worth? Well it would kill the big 3. If not we let them patent us to death and take their solutions at 40K a crack.
And we still get on the average, what my father calculated they gave us since 1934. And that figure is 19.6 miles per gallon. That is what you are stuck with with Detroit Iron in normal driving. I challenge you to prove you can average better city and HWY. I have talked to all the detroit iron people who tell me that they get 30 MPG.
They just don't know. They are not testing at all fairly or accurately. One trip maybe, all Hwy, and they do not count right to start. They have no idea the amount they actually used, etc..
I used to drive a 411 which got 32 hiway and 22 town. That was the mileage king of ALL time. Weight, metered injection, power plant HP, friction on rear drive, aerodyanics, computer control -- there is no way Detroit could equal the figures. Which BTW are in consumer reports, and Ralph Nader so they did get that right.
The Detroit figures today are all hooey. They get, by test, which I do, about 24 HWY and 16 town. Now I have only done about 1,000,000 miles of test for 20 years, so go ahead and disagree. Hell disagree anyway but get the figures and turn it into a fist fight that throws some light on it at least.
The key that prove my point is Newton and Galileo. the formula for work and F=MA. What is A? Acceleration. What is constant speed? Slowing down on friction.. it should not exist this need to drive things at constant speed but for friction. which was Galileo's great breakthrough.. this dicates that power is only useful to put into ....
....
acceleration. All else is waste.
EC<:-} |
