Why don't car makers make direct drive electric hybrids?

[6Cuda6]

Now if you want to put your engineering hat on...figure a way to get at least 80% to 90% of the drive power recovered so that the thing only needs a surface charge at best....electric motors can be generators is the stator current is changed.

Now we do regenerative braking but its only at about 10% recovery....

The true answer with any alternative energy vehicle will be that it will never be 100% efficent because everyone involved from top to bottom need their profits....

 

[oc_in_fw]

As for limiting factors with electric its the batteries....although they are improving by leeps and bounds we just dont have the capacity to charge speed we need ....yet. Also we dont have a good enough life cycle meaning that the batteries only last about 7 years then needing replacement.

Conversely, how many cars need a MAJOR repair, like transmission or AC (or both), in that same 7 years?

 

[Slash McCoy]

Direct drive motors do exist and they work quite well at LOW speed.....problem is our average speed for cars is about 40mph which is beyond the direct drive efficiency range.

As for limiting factors with electric its the batteries....although they are improving by leeps and bounds we just dont have the capacity to charge speed we need ....yet. Also we dont have a good enough life cycle meaning that the batteries only last about 7 years then needing replacement.

Although i think its a viable alternative to fosil fuel vehicles its by no means environmentaly friendly....after all we still need to charge the thing and most of our electricity comes from coal fired hydro plants....lets not forget also that if even 50% of all vehicles where electric our electric grids in the cities couldnt support it.....dont even get me started on the tax losses from not buying gasoline and the increased cost of hydro do to consuption.

More precisely, they work best at low POWER. Which is why my direct drive ebike worked almost 3x the legal limit at which I can still call it a bicycle, and not register/insure/license/inspection etc. It is also why my eboat is more efficient with a reduction gear, to increase motor RPM for a given prop RPM. Speed is almost immaterial, except in regards to the power required to achieve that speed, and the performance hit created by the internal cooling fan not cooling as well at low motor speeds and high load.

Edison cells last over 100 years with proper care. LiFePO4 cells are good typically for 10 years, as are the unavailable NiMH wet cells that GM is sitting on. Best deep cycle flooded lead acid batteries can last over 20 years. The golf cart batteries in my boat will last me probably longer than 7 years, but only because I know how to maintain them and don't trust a "smart" charger to do it for me, and check electrolyte levels regularly. Car batteries made up of hundreds of 18650 Li-Ion cells seldom last over 7 years, to be sure, but this is mostly because of the problem with managing so many of them in parallel groups. Life cycle is not the problem. The problem is energy density. kwhr/lb or kg.

There is no such thing as a coal fired hydro plant.

Hydroelectric power is pretty clean, actually. Large scale diesel plants are fairly clean and environmentally friendly, because very large two stroke diesels (talking about engines with piston heads big enough for a couple to dance on, also used for ships) are the most fuel efficient internal combustion engines ever made. Coal fired steam turbine plants can be rather dirty or not too bad, depending on the coal used and the waste gas management systems in place. Still more efficient and environmentally friendly than individuals getting into their gas or diesel powered conveyances multiple times a day and zooming or creeping as the case may be, down the freeway.

The power grid will expand its capability to keep up with demand, hopefully with much of the increase coming from more sustainable power sources. Individual homeowners can do their part by installing a few kw of solar panels, and ditto for businesses, so that ecar owners can charge directly from solar. When used for short range trips, and left in the sun all day, we only need for solar cell efficiency to triple to make solar equipped vehicles practical.

 

[Slash McCoy]

Now if you want to put your engineering hat on...figure a way to get at least 80% to 90% of the drive power recovered so that the thing only needs a surface charge at best....electric motors can be generators is the stator current is changed.

Now we do regenerative braking but its only at about 10% recovery....

The true answer with any alternative energy vehicle will be that it will never be 100% efficent because everyone involved from top to bottom need their profits....

Yes, most motors can be used as generators, or at least alternators. But not at the same time that they are being used as a motor. Regen braking actually is a big help, though. Look at electric or hybrid city vs highway mileage. You actually get back considerable energy from regen.

You are right about no vehicle ever being 100% efficient. Both for the reason you state, and also because it is a physical impossibility. But profit has kept corporate America from offering many technological blessings to the public. That is part of the evil of corporate economics. Corporate executives are not responsible to the customers. They are responsible to the stockholders and particularly the board of directors. Customers are not important. The advertising guys will ensure that we keep lining up for more fiscal abuse. A privately held business is different. Everyone, from the president of the company on down, is very much aware of the importance of keeping the customer happy.

 

[Slash McCoy]

Conversely, how many cars need a MAJOR repair, like transmission or AC (or both), in that same 7 years?

Indeed. Especially for owners stupid enough to buy a car with an automatic transmission. A malfunction waiting to happen.

What I think is funny is when someone buys a car with power windows. No window cranks. And drives in New Orleans. In the summer. And the air conditioning goes out. And within weeks, the power windows stop working and can't be rolled down. Rolling toaster oven!!! All this stuff is programmed to fail just beyond the warranty period. Same with these cheap, ultra light aluminum block engines with two bolt main bearings. When you throw a rod or spin a bearing, when does it happen?

Detroit will figure out how to screw up electric cars, too. They can't have a car whose drive train lasts for 50 years or more and needs little more than a fresh bank of batteries every 10 years or so. What would the stockholders think?

 

[oc_in_fw]

Indeed. Especially for owners stupid enough to buy a car with an automatic transmission. A malfunction waiting to happen.

What I think is funny is when someone buys a car with power windows. No window cranks. And drives in New Orleans. In the summer. And the air conditioning goes out. And within weeks, the power windows stop working and can't be rolled down. Rolling toaster oven!!! All this stuff is programmed to fail just beyond the warranty period. Same with these cheap, ultra light aluminum block engines with two bolt main bearings. When you throw a rod or spin a bearing, when does it happen?

Detroit will figure out how to screw up electric cars, too. They can't have a car whose drive train lasts for 50 years or more and needs little more than a fresh bank of batteries every 10 years or so. What would the stockholders think?

And the consumer will just blame the Joes that put it together, and they have nothing to do with it. Management telsl the engineers to design them to last 7 years max. It doesn't matter how well the assembly person puts it together, it is designed to fail. They have gotten a little better, though, but only because the Japanese are forcing them too.

 

[6Cuda6]

And the consumer will just blame the Joes that put it together, and they have nothing to do with it. Management telsl the engineers to design them to last 7 years max. It doesn't matter how well the assembly person puts it together, it is designed to fail. They have gotten a little better, though, but only because the Japanese are forcing them too.

Yup its know as "engineered obsolescence".....they know to the second when its going to fail and if it doesnt they never make it again.

 

[6Cuda6]

Indeed. Especially for owners stupid enough to buy a car with an automatic transmission. A malfunction waiting to happen.

What I think is funny is when someone buys a car with power windows. No window cranks. And drives in New Orleans. In the summer. And the air conditioning goes out. And within weeks, the power windows stop working and can't be rolled down. Rolling toaster oven!!! All this stuff is programmed to fail just beyond the warranty period. Same with these cheap, ultra light aluminum block engines with two bolt main bearings. When you throw a rod or spin a bearing, when does it happen?

Detroit will figure out how to screw up electric cars, too. They can't have a car whose drive train lasts for 50 years or more and needs little more than a fresh bank of batteries every 10 years or so. What would the stockholders think?

Agreed but we have to also factor in government control and need for tax dollars to which fuel payes a major roll.

Its not going to matter much what we want because we end up following the California emissions moddo which currently is zero emmision for transit vehicles by 2030 and all vehicles zero by 2040. Dont forget they ban 2 strokes and just ban diesel as of 2014 (so no diesel vehicle sold after 2014)

 

[ouch]

Slash, eloquent analysis. Thank you!

+ 1

 

[redfalconf35]

But profit has kept corporate America from offering many technological blessings to the public. That is part of the evil of corporate economics. Corporate executives are not responsible to the customers. They are responsible to the stockholders and particularly the board of directors. Customers are not important.

I think this is a massive misunderstanding of how corporate politics and boardrooms work. Boards and shareholders are endemically short-sighted, but a public corporation is still just as susceptible to loss of profits as any other company. Profits don't just appear, but come from customers choosing to buy their products. Without satisfying a critical mass of customers, a public corporation doesn't exist for very long.

The idea of patenting a product just to deep six it is absurd. It costs tens of thousands of dollars for a single patent, and it would take many, many patents to completely wall off an entire technology area. They cost money to maintain, they're public record, and they only have a limited lifespan. The idea that GM would spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep some utopian battery tech out of the market is conspiratorial, at best.

Without knowing anything about the specific situation, I'd guess that the tech isn't as good as people think, the patent is long since expired, and we don't have super efficient electric cars because not enough people would buy one to offset the costs of setting up the manufacturing line.

They can't have a car whose drive train lasts for 50 years or more and needs little more than a fresh bank of batteries every 10 years or so. What would the stockholders think?

Most people trade in their cars after 3 years because they're sick of the interior. I don't think that paying extra for a drivetrain that lasts 50 years makes sense to most of their customers.

 

[bberg100]

So are you saying the 100 mpg Cadillac carb GM & the oil companies have patented and kept hidden since the 70s isn't real? Say it ain't so!

 

[Slash McCoy]

Agreed but we have to also factor in government control and need for tax dollars to which fuel payes a major roll.

Its not going to matter much what we want because we end up following the California emissions moddo which currently is zero emmision for transit vehicles by 2030 and all vehicles zero by 2040. Dont forget they ban 2 strokes and just ban diesel as of 2014 (so no diesel vehicle sold after 2014)

I think this is a massive misunderstanding of how corporate politics and boardrooms work. Boards and shareholders are endemically short-sighted, but a public corporation is still just as susceptible to loss of profits as any other company. Profits don't just appear, but come from customers choosing to buy their products. Without satisfying a critical mass of customers, a public corporation doesn't exist for very long.

The idea of patenting a product just to deep six it is absurd. It costs tens of thousands of dollars for a single patent, and it would take many, many patents to completely wall off an entire technology area. They cost money to maintain, they're public record, and they only have a limited lifespan. The idea that GM would spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep some utopian battery tech out of the market is conspiratorial, at best.

Without knowing anything about the specific situation, I'd guess that the tech isn't as good as people think, the patent is long since expired, and we don't have super efficient electric cars because not enough people would buy one to offset the costs of setting up the manufacturing line.



Most people trade in their cars after 3 years because they're sick of the interior. I don't think that paying extra for a drivetrain that lasts 50 years makes sense to most of their customers.

Why do corporations spend many, many millions, tens or even more millions, on advertising campaigns? Because they work. Consumers are hypnotized by flashy ads. They believe what they are told, trust their eyes with what they are shown. Tell them to buy, and they buy. The company doesn't need to put out a better product. They just have to spend more money on advertising. Consumers are just resources, easily manipulated, for the most part. It is more profitable to advertise a lousy product than to make a great one and let it stand on its merits.

You will not find a single former driver of the EV-1 who has any complaint about the car, except that GM took it away from them. The handful of EV-1 battery packs not sent to the crusher still could took 90% of the charge 10 years later, compared to brand new. I say that is an excellent battery, even compared to modern batteries.

Some people do probably get tired of the interior of a car after 3 years. This is probably aided and abetted by the sure knowledge that in a few more years the car will be a pile of junk, anyway. Contrast this to the early 60's and back, when folks bought cars and figured on driving them until the wheels fell off. My great uncle drove his Buick Roadmaster daily until just a few years ago. He stopped driving it only because he died. My cousin then sold it to my great uncle's old marine corps buddy. Still runs great, one rebuild on the engine and tranny each. I drive a 2004 Chevy Cavalier that is on its last legs. It was given to me. Free. I will drive it til the wheels fall off, which might be months from now. Planned obsolescence is filling our landfills up with stuff that had ought not be ready to discard. My sister has a mixer left by our grandmother, probably bought new in the 50's. She uses it all the time. Go ahead, buy a new one. Any bets on whether it will last 60+ years? I have my Grandfather's old thermos, that he carried to work during WWII when he worked for Boeing building bombers. Not a thing wrong with it. Stanley, the maker, probably has me on a hit list for that. They probably hate me for not buying a new one. New and improved. Just like the latest "shaving system". Are those 7 blade monster cartridges any better than a good straight razor, or even a vintage Gillette DE razor? Are they? No. But they generate more profits. It is more profitable to make and market junk than quality products. All you have to do is convince a gullible public that they are better off buying the new junk than to keep using the same good ol stuff.

The patent on the NiMH wet cell is certainly not expired. If it was, it would be going toe to toe with LiIon. If not in the US, it would be produced overseas. There has been considerable interest in manufacturing these batteries. GM and its subsidiary that holds the patents, won't let it go. Not so much a big deal, now. We have several competing battery chemistries available. But it is always nice to have one more choice.

Remember CFC lightbulbs? Whose brilliant idea was that? Only consumers who were scared they would get fines for improper disposal of those toxic nightmares convinced companies to jump into LEDs with both feet. They tried to keep pushing CFC but sometimes the public sees through the BS and shouts down the emperor for being nekkid. Most of they time they just buy what they are told to buy. But corporations still keep trying to con us.

 

[Doraemon]

A few years ago an American university developed such a vehicl. What they did was adapt direct drive motors into the hub assemblies of a regular gasoline-powered car. They planned to patent their invention and market it, and the story ended there. Quite likely their patent was bought by a potential competitor. Why spend $70,000 for a new Tesla when you can convert any car to electric for $5000?

An engineer I knew developed a homemade electric 4x4, using a Toyota landcruiser chassis. The existing drivline was used, the gasoline engine was swapped for a high output electric motor his company had developed. The vehicle was fitted with a bank of batteries which could be charged from a wall outlet, and it also had an onboard generator which provided enough power to run the electric motor and/or charge the batteries. It was an amazing machine which cost less than $10,000 to build.

Electric cars are not new technology, the first ones were built more than a century ago.

 

[StillShaving]

While I do think there is some planned obsolesce at the margins, I think consumer behavior is a much bigger factor. So many always choosing lower price over durability, longevity, repairability, etc. causing better built things to become even more expensive and slowly fade away.

Patents by definition expose how something works, allowing potential competitors to understanding the underlying principles and in many cases building a different mousetrap to side-step the patent and achieve a similar result. One cannot patent a mathematical solution or nature itself (DNA sequencing results may be a hotly debated counter example), so there are limits on keeping basic scientific principles locked away from others. From an economic perspective it would be uncommon for a patent to be so valuable that it would be worth more to bury in a defensive manner and not build the thing directly or license to a third party. Patents are territorial as well, something patented in US would need to filed in other locations. I think modern day China (maybe through WTO or other treaties) is more respectful of patents, but not so much in the past.

 

[SucKO]

The problem with all these various "green" solutions are, they really aren't green. Lithium batteries, solar panels, etc. have significant mining issues associated with them. Then there is the disposal of the used items. Its mearly taking the pollution out of the air and moving it to the ground or water. In the end, are we generating waste that is more toxic? We really don't know, and won't know until much larger scales of production and disposal are reached.

Only really "green" energy would be hydrogen (and hydrogen fuel cells). BUT, there is a reason hydrogen went out of favor around the time of the Hindenburg. Hydrogen is really reactive and dangerous. It burns clear so you don't see a flame, it violently reacts with water (a humid day with a hydrogen leak = Big Badda Boom). Pound for pound, hydrogen/oxygen fuel gives the most bang for the buck, but there is a reason most rockets today are solid fuel, significantly less dangerous and liable to explode.

In the end, there are alot of unknowns and questions and a lack of answers. Are electrical/battery systems going to stop air pollution but destroy the groundwater? That is a Nobel Prize question.