LocostUSA.com

Ive been kicking this idea around for a potential entry into the x-prize competition. anyone want to comment on it?

a three wheeler (pair in front)
light, thin walled round tube chassis.
tandem seating for two
pretty much the entire front end from a fast quad like a raptor.

a 10hp diesel engine commonly used in generators etc (about 400 on ebay) with no transmission,

a 10 hp electric golf cart motor.

Heres how I am thinking they go together:

behind the rear rider the diesel engine, just behind the diesel is the electric motor, their output shafts are on the same level.

Each engine has a one way bearing at the sprocket.

the electric motor would be used for speeds up to say 40 in town etc

for highway driving, the electric motor takes it up to 40 or 45, then the diesel is started and goes from there.

for reverse (If I got this wrong, its because my head hurts) lol a second one way bearing on the outside of the electric motor running to a second drive sprocket on the rear wheel.

anyway, I really respect the engineering talent on this board, and would love some comments, suggestions.

Tom

where do you put the batteries to run it at those speeds?? Up front? I think the diesel with a cvt trans would get some good numbers.

200mpg is a toughie at highway speeds, but if you wanted to pulse-and-glide and average 15mph, there are high school kids who have beaten 500mpg. Go to the X PRIZE site and review the draft of the rules, there's no reason what you've described couldn't run in the alternative class...but if you set it up to get 200mpg, it's not going to meet the performance minimums.

I think for a hybred drivetrain the simplest is to drive one end electric and the other end via internal combustion.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

It's all about the aerodynamics really

Solar cars like these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_0095.jpg

can run 60-65 MPH on as little as 1-2 hp of output from the solar cells

if they were powered by en engine with a BSFC of .4 (not too special) they could run that speed and get >400 MPG

Good input guys!

The way I came up with the mileage goal was the manufacturers claim that at full power (as a generator) it burned .23 gallons per hour so (assuming 10 hp would move it down the highway) 65 mph x 4 = 260

I would of course need a full fairing, space age canopy, and a support crew to lift my aging carcass out of this thing

Who's the manufacturer? Do you have a link where specs are available?

Glen says an engine with a BSFC of .4 is not too special (which doesn't match my experience as an engine designer, by the way--.4 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour is pretty challenging even on bigger engines and I've never heard of a 1 to 2 hp internal combustion engine with that level of efficiency), but 10 hp on .23 gallons per hour...let's see, to do a horseback calculation, we'll guess 7 pounds per gallon of diesel fuel, that's about 1.6 pounds for ten horsepower = BSFC of .16 and I think we can all agree that's pretty dang special.

The solar racers (or raycers, to be PC) are designed around one set of competition rules, the X PRIZE vehicles around another. Building a 200 mpg vehicle is easier than building a 100 mpg X PRIZE contender.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

Looks like in my exuberence I misquoted, the .24 gph is for half load, about 3 gallons to the hour for full load...

http://cmdpowersystems.com/inventory-po ... &pic=14910

still somewhere in 200 mpg range up closer to 70 mph.

I got a chuckle and some inspiration from this article as well...

http://www.utterpower.com/10hp_chevy.htm

I just googled "typical BSFC", not being familiar with diesel efficiencies, no doubt it's harder to get good BSFC in a smaller engine, and 10hp is definantly the small end of the range for diesels in general.

I only wanted to stress the importance of aerodynamics, a novel drivetrain alone isn't going to be enough, especially at highway speeds.

If that engine only uses .34 gal/hr @ 10 hp it's pretty damn efficient
long link

Then you just need a chassis that you can push 60 MPH with 7.5 HP
long link

The X prize rules are pretty restrictive, even for the alternative class because they want practical cars instead of concepts. Then there is the $5000 qualifying fee, with more due if you qualify.

It can be a 2 seater but not a tandem. Then there is the emission testing, a minimum of 5 cubic feet of cargo space, and safety equipment.

http://auto.xprize.org/files/downloads/ ... 070402.pdf

http://www.rqriley.com/xr3.htm

Over 80 mph from pedal power has been achieved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAvEPM2CQYk
http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/whatsup.htm
http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/speedru ... e-2000.htm

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

where might one find a cvt trans for an application like this?

I think snowmobiles use CVT trans don't they???

For 10 hp, you could get by with a Comet torque converter. They make them for up to 20-30 HP, I believe. You would still probably need the higher HP one due to torque of the motor. That being the case, not sure if it will handle moving that much weight. A sled one will be better, but the clutch/springs are designed to work on a higher RPM. Probably can't get it to advance properly on 3000 RPM. The Comet OTOH, is designed for 3,000-3,600.

Glen, you're right on the mark re the importance of aerodynamic drag in high mileage vehicles (or high speed vehicles with limited power, which is another way to look at it). As far as that engine's efficiency, .34 gal/hr @ 10 hp is incredibly efficient, and I mean that quite literally. It's about 75% more efficient than any off-the-shelf internal combustion engine I'm aware of...not that I think it's impossible, and there is lots in this world I'm not aware of, but it's also possible the brochure writers didn't clarify that "full load" meant a high enough load to lug the engine down into a lower power output RPM range. So that's my first guess; rather than having advanced technology beyond what is known to practitioners of the art, I'd guess they loaded the engine down to around 6 hp before they measured the fuel consumption.

As far as going 60 mph on 7.5 hp, that part is doable, though with some difficulty for a side-by-side vehicle that can pass federal crash tests. At 60 mph, you have 6.25 pounds of thrust per horsepower, about 9 pounds of parasite drag per square foot of equivalent drag area...rolling resistance and transmission losses might take a third of the gross horsepower, if so you need a body that has equivalent drag area of about 3 square feet. A 3/4 scale Ford GT40, perhaps, and it'll help if it has 3/4 as many wheels as the original, too.

Go for it, todayican. Once you have a running prototype that meets or exceeds the competition specs, I don't think you'll have much trouble finding somebody who will put up the entry fee.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

For those that do not know, a Comet Torque Converter is a CVT drive system.

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

I beleive I will build this, Jack I am fairly sure you are right about the consumption.

as for AXP, as much as I like what they will do for humanity with the compitition, I dont think I will enter (Largely because I want a tandem) wy ultimate goal is to get a REALLY good stereo and drive this sucker from the George Washington bridge to the Golden Gate bridge on one tank of gas (2 topps

I wonder why AXP requires side by side given some of the "forerunners" in what they are calling the alternative class are tandem like the merlin, and potentially the carver.