Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Lets say peak power was at 5k and you wanted to generate this peak power so had full throttle, what would stop the motor revving to say 6k? That is what I am trying to understand.

Engine produces

150kw @ 3000rpm

180kw @ 4000rpm

200kw @ 5000rpm.

170kw @ 6000rpm

You need to access that 200kw so the throttle is open 100%. It cant go over 5000rpm because the engine makes less power above 5000rpm.

You can vary rpm using the throttle to achieve what you want or you can vary load on the engine using the variable hydraulics. It would be a combination of both

Edited by Bond

The generator would be the smart part of the system as it regulates its magnetic feild inconjunction with the demand from the APP sensor and the engine's delivered torque.

This would be alot more effienent than a hydraulic system by about 20-30 percent hence why Caterpillars new 795F is electrodrive.

You cannot base everything on the fact that CAT use this system in large dump trucks where weight and cost are of little issue. The systems i have been talking about are also made by CAT...does that mean they are superior....NO. The 20-30% efficiency may come from regenerative braking where energy is stored while travelling down the pit and then used later on

Edited by Bond

WIth the motor and generator combination, could you not just use an AC -> AC motor? There are no inverters, regulators, nothing needed, you could literally just wire them directly together removing a point of inefficiency.

If you just wire them together with nothing smart in the middle, then you have no way to modulate the speed of the vehicle separately to the engine speed. Your ECVT is then not a CVT, just an expensive coupling.

If you just wire them together with nothing smart in the middle, then you have no way to modulate the speed of the vehicle separately to the engine speed. Your ECVT is then not a CVT, just an expensive coupling.

Couldn't you just use the engines throttle to modulate speed. If you have more throttle you get more revs and power, hence the motor delivers more power. Less throttle means it delivers less throttle. You are right, this wouldn't be a true CVT then, but it would have of the benefits of a CVT, being able to hold a motor at peak power without a gearbox changing gears and dropping you out of the powerband.

It would be better with a control system, but a control system requires a huge ass VSD, inverters, AC -> DC etc which is another stage of inefficiency's.

Couldn't you just use the engines throttle to modulate speed. If you have more throttle you get more revs and power, hence the motor delivers more power. Less throttle means it delivers less throttle. You are right, this wouldn't be a true CVT then, but it would have of the benefits of a CVT, being able to hold a motor at peak power without a gearbox changing gears and dropping you out of the powerband.

It would be better with a control system, but a control system requires a huge ass VSD, inverters, AC -> DC etc which is another stage of inefficiency's.

Um, no, you couldn't. Think about it a bit more. The generator turns at exactly the same speed as the engine. If it is an AC generator then it will spit out a varying voltage and frequency, which if you hook it straight up to an AC motor will make the AC motor do pretty much the same as the generator is doing. Same speed. No gearing, nothing useful. If the generator is DC, then the gen will output a voltage that depends on the engine speed, and the DC motor that is hooked up to it will just spin at the same speed as the generator. As I said, an expensive coupling.

You could have different speeds between generator and motor by having different windings on them - ie you could make one 4 pole and one 6 pole and get a different synchronous speed on AC stuff. And if you were crazy you could put multiple windings into one or both of them and switch between them but this would only give you a number of different gears, not CVT.

You very much need to be able to chop the power that comes out of the generator into little pieces and smirsh it around and then feed it into the motor to give you the result you're looking for.

Of course, with an AC motor the speed is going to be proportional to the hz, the hz of course is exactly the same rpm the engine is doing hence it would be like having a single gear which is as you said just an expensive coupling.

So you would either need a VSD or convert it to DC and control it this way.

You cannot base everything on the fact that CAT use this system in large dump trucks where weight and cost are of little issue. The systems i have been talking about are also made by CAT...does that mean they are superior....NO. The 20-30% efficiency may come from regenerative braking where energy is stored while travelling down the pit and then used later on

I was mearly comparing electro drive to a hydraulic based system. Considering most variable displacement axial piston pumps are around 50-60% efficient.

And there is no regenerative braking on the 795F - just a really big resistor and cooler fan!

I don't think the powerband in a turbo petrol is small enough to warrant this setup. How about just hooking up an 8 speed Auto.

This really is the ultimate way to go, with 8 gears you could quite effectively utilise a power band that is even only 1k wide.

All hypothetical.

Assuming the system will be used as normal road going car.

Most power is required for acceleration, once at a constant speed your power requirement will be much less and once you start braking, you can use this energy to regenerate.

So I was thinking you can have a diesel engine running at its most effiecient RPM/powerband constantly, this then drives the electric motors and charges some sort of super capacitor/s.

The diesel engine idles down to a slower speed when the car is stationary or when generation is not required.

When the car accelerates the capacitors discharge into the electric motors to assist the power generated by the diesel engine for the burst of power required for acceleration. Once at constant speed the diesel engine's electricity output should be enough to sustain the an constant speed and slight acceleration.

When the car slows down, it will use regenerative braking to charge the capacitors, and the diesel engine can idle down earlier if needed.

This really is the ultimate way to go, with 8 gears you could quite effectively utilise a power band that is even only 1k wide.

Lexus IS-F :P

i don't wanna talk to a scientist, those mother f**kers lying and getting me pissed.

LOL

A-Z of shit music, triple J absolutely destroy them, f**king hilarious

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...