Plug in Hybrid 30 years ago

[yuandrew]

I visited the 2009 LA international Auto Show on Saturday where the widely anticipated Chevy Volt was featured. The Volt was stated to be released for sale in October of 2010.

Plug in hybrids seem to be all the rage these days especially with the recent introduction of the Volt and a couple other auto manufactures were also slating plans for plug in hybrid models in the future. Now many would think that such technology in vehicles are recent developments but the concept has been around longer that what one would think.

Let's go back 30 years to 1979 at the tail end of the Arab oil embargo act and take a look a particular hybrid vehicle. The vehicle wasn't made by a major auto maker but rather a company known for making lawnmower engines.

The 1980 Briggs and Stratton hybrid featured the company's then newly released Model 42 Twin Cylinder 18 horsepower air cooled riding mower engine, which, in conjunction with an 8 horsepower DC motor, moved the vehicle via the rear wheels. The reason for the tandem rear axle was to support the weight of the lead acid battery pack which powered the traction motor. Although some literature I found mentioned regenerative braking, the gasoline engine did not have a way of directly charging the traction battery pack. When the batteries were depleted, one would drive "home" exclusively on the gas engine and recharged by connecting the battery pack to an external charger; technically making it a "Plug in" hybrid. It took 6 to 8 hours to fully recharge and the range on "EV only" mode was about 30 miles with a top speed of 40mph. Fuel mileage was estimated to be 85mpg average although claims of up to 100mpg were touted under ideal conditions.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/29448164.html
http://green.autoblog.com/2008/03/10/from-the-vault-1979-briggs-and-stratton-6-wheel-hybrid/

 

[jeeves]

It's too bad that money is king.
I don't know if it's the root of evil but it's definitely the cause of lots and lots of problems.

Trolly cars, large scale public transit systems, and the electric car (plus who knows what else). All killed to protect the income of a few major industries.
:thinking:

 

[bluecrow76]

Looks like Briggs and Stratton need to get back in the game!

Thanks for sharing. :thumbsup:

 

[jtr1962]

It's too bad that money is king.
I don't know if it's the root of evil but it's definitely the cause of lots and lots of problems.

It's not so much money as it is entire industries fearing they will be rendered obsolete. If we had electric cars instead of gas cars, people would still be making lots of money. It just wouldn't be the same people currently making money from gas cars. Industries making big money off the status quo are going to fight tooth and nail against any change, and/or prevent competition on an equal footing.

Trolly cars, large scale public transit systems, and the electric car (plus who knows what else). All killed to protect the income of a few major industries.
:thinking:

Yep. It's sad thinking of what might have been versus what is. IMO the entire switch to individual over public transport, combined with powering much of our transit with fossil fuels, is a mistake we'll be paying for a long time from now. Ironically, if we really wanted electric cars, even 30 years ago when batteries were really limited, we could have had them. I've often envisioned a system where cars pick up power from roadways like slot cars, getting their power from the grid instead of batteries. It would have worked, but then again if you want electric transit I tend to think electric trains make orders of magnitude more sense. But we killed those also.

The only good news is the growing disenchantment with heavy traffic and the auto. While we will finally see electric cars, we'll also finally start the construction of new public transit. Hopefully in a few decades there will be a bit more balance between public and private transport.

Oh, interesting design. I think the 6 wheels were needed because of the weight of the battery. This just shows how far battery technology has come in the 3 decades since.

 

[gadget_lover]

There have been a lot of hybrids over the years. Batteries have been cobmined with IC engines, turbines, wankels, diesels and probably more.

The big differences in the last 10 - 15 years are the solid state devices (IGBT ???) that allow smooth and efficient motor control. The second big enabler is the computers that do such a great job of controlling the charge/discharge cycles.

Personally I think the other big improvement is the ingenious ways that some hybrids transfer power from engine to wheels or battery as needed. Some of the designs deliver truly seamless driving, where you are never quite sure where the power is coming from or going to.

Daniel

 

[ABTOMAT]

There have been a lot of hybrids over the years. Batteries have been cobmined with IC engines, turbines, wankels, diesels and probably more.

The big differences in the last 10 - 15 years are the solid state devices (IGBT ???) that allow smooth and efficient motor control. The second big enabler is the computers that do such a great job of controlling the charge/discharge cycles.

Personally I think the other big improvement is the ingenious ways that some hybrids transfer power from engine to wheels or battery as needed. Some of the designs deliver truly seamless driving, where you are never quite sure where the power is coming from or going to.

Daniel

I'd say one of the biggest differences is battery technology. A lot of those old hybrid or electric cars were toting around a couple thousand pounds of lead acid cells. One major reason they weren't feasible for normal use.

 

[KD5XB]

In 1978 there was an article in Mother Earth News about a guy that had built a hybrid electric car. He used an Opel GT (like a miniature Corvette) and replaced the gas engine with an electric motor. Used a small lawn mower engine with an alternator to charge the battery pack.

I was so impressed that I called him on the phone and asked LOTS of questions. He told me that it would burst up to 90 MPH and had about a 35-mile range on electric alone, after which it would take around 15 minutes to park and run the gas engine to recharge. Sounds like a perfect in-town vehicle.

There was no conspiracy to kill this thing, it just wasn't marketed properly and in the end was a one-off vehicle built by a guy that loved to tinker.

You can see this thing here, here, and it's mentioned here.

 

[John_Galt]

I still don't think gasoline/diesel will ever fully dissapear from the market. They're too ingrained into our society.

And, truthfully, I'd be scared to get into a car with 100+ pounds of lithium in it. That may just be me, though.


What I always thought would be the best hybrid, at least in bus/tractor-trailer size applications, would be a jet-turbine/electric combo. The electric motor would be powered by a generator connected to the turbine. As the vehicle reached a speed where the turbine could effectively take over motive power (say, cruising on the highway) more efficiently, it would be disconnected from the generator, and drive the transmission.

But I'm the first to admit I know nothing of electric hybrids/jet engines. I have read a bit about the ?Chrysler? turbine car of the early 70's. It was a good car, but suffered from poor acceleration and fuel consumption in cities. Even utilizing lead acid batteries of the day, I think that a hybrid power system as described above would have been an effective solution, albeit initial costs would be high.

 

[KD5XB]

Railroad locomotives operate similarly to what you describe -- the HUGE Diesel engine spins a generator which powers electric motors on the axles. Union Pacific experimented with gas turbines instead of Diesel engines some years ago, and the real problem was the fuel consumption -- it was just about the same running empty as it was with a full load of coal -- which is totally AGAINST the goal of fuel economy. You can read about them here. (I like putting links on HERE... )

 

[jtr1962]

I still don't think gasoline/diesel will ever fully dissapear from the market. They're too ingrained into our society.

Not fully disappear, but I suspect once electric cars reach some critical mass where the majority have them, then legislators will ban gas/diesel vehicles from population centers for health/aesthetic/noise reasons. That will likely swing the small minority still owning gas cars into purchasing electrics as they would now be limited where they can travel. This doesn't mean internal combustion engines won't still have their niche uses. Difficult to see any other means of power if you'll be in the bush for days, away from the power grid. But for commuting or running errands or even family trips on highways it's hard to see the straight electric not taking over fairly fast. All the pieces for this to happen are finally in place-batteries, motors, control electronics, a desire to reduce pollution, rising fuel prices. This is one of those disruptive, game changing technologies which will rewrite the book on how we get around, just as solid-state electronics forever changed our society.

And, truthfully, I'd be scared to get into a car with 100+ pounds of lithium in it. That may just be me, though.

Well, there already exist safe lithium chemistries such as the A123 cells. Down the road, I feel lithium is just a halfway house until supercapacitor development catches up. I feel this is ultimately what we'll be using for EVs. The advantages are many-safe, rechargeable millions of times, unlimited shelf life, and very high discharge currents. But unfortunately energy density is only about one-tenth of lithium cells. Give it another ten years of development though and I think we'll catch up.

What I always thought would be the best hybrid, at least in bus/tractor-trailer size applications, would be a jet-turbine/electric combo. The electric motor would be powered by a generator connected to the turbine. As the vehicle reached a speed where the turbine could effectively take over motive power (say, cruising on the highway) more efficiently, it would be disconnected from the generator, and drive the transmission.

This was already tried in trains in the 1960s by Union Pacific. They used a turbine to power a generator which in turn powered traction motors. It was a more or less a disaster for a number of reasons:

1) Turbine engines like to run at constant speed. Even hooked to a genset where they could run at relatively constant speed, but varying power levels, killed the engine. Forget any idea of connecting a turbine directly to a transmission. It just plain won't work.

2) Fuel consumption was horrible with a capital H. Then again, it didn't matter at the time because they used Bunker C which was going for something like a penny a gallon. UP needed horsepower which the diesels of the time couldn't muster. They didn't care about fuel consumption.

3) Ingress of dirt greatly shortened the life of the turbine blades. Not a problem at 35,000 feet in a 747, but for any type of ground transport particle ingestion will be a major factor.

4) Last but not least, NOISE! You could hear these things coming 5 miles down the track. UP couldn't really run them near any population centers. The noise from normal diesel trucks and buses is bad enough when you put a bunch of them together. And noise regulations will only get tighter. On the noise issue alone turbines are a non-starter.

EDIT: I see KD5XB beat me to the punch regarding UP's gas-turbine locomotives (and his link is much better than the one I provided).