No idea. They have patented it. It is probably a very expensive patent if it's not going to make it into production.
Are you ready for the end of the ICE era?
- Thread starter Populuxe
- 158 comments
- 23,378 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
So they say, but I'm not sure where that applies. A quick skeg of Google Patents suggests multiple similar patents going back much further in the US, Korea and Japan. Given that there's at least 25 year interest in the idea but no sign of it being used on high-tech mainstream EVs I just don't think this one's really got wings. Wheels. Whatever.
- 11,805
- Marin County
Owing to conservation of energy, this seems like it could only be useful on downhill descents...similar to regen braking.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
From the image of the turbine on top of the car, it's worse than that. Not only is it a crackpot perpetual motion machine, it's not configured in a way to cause a net benefit under regen braking - because it's causing drag at all times, including under acceleration. It would be better to just remove it entirely rather than to try to claw back some of the losses when braking (presumably by locking and unlocking the turbine spin according to whether the brake pedal is pushed).
What it would need to be a fully operable regen braking situation, is to be deployed or newly exposed to the wind when braking occurs, and then stowed or somehow blocked form the wind when braking is not occuring, such that it does not cause drag when it isn't being used for regeneration. It would be possible, but not like it's being done.
Issued patents or patent applications? Big difference.
- 11,805
- Marin County
Right. The problem is that it's not actually harnessing wind...it's trying to harness it's own aerodynamic drag which doesn't pass the smell test.
Now, my long simmering idea for a vertical axis wind turbine powered lightweight watercraft would actually use "ambient" wind, like a sailboat, only converting it to electrical energy first, stored in a battery, to power a propeller.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Maybe there's some value in harnessing strong headwinds under braking, but even then you're carrying weight to create drag for an opportunity that's very small in cross-section.
That's a good question and I can't remember (and didn't thing to look). My point remains though, if large companies were looking at patents for this 25+ years ago then it's hard to imagine this startup have somehow snuck a successful application through.
I agree that they're better ditching the weight, closing the holes, and beefing up brake regen.
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
It's just another scheme like the on board hydrogen generator devices that were running amok years ago.
I still think latent Stirling engines deserve more looking into, it may not be a super strong charge, but even a little charge could benefit overnight or through the day.
I still think latent Stirling engines deserve more looking into, it may not be a super strong charge, but even a little charge could benefit overnight or through the day.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
- 5,971
- Finland
I wouldn't have a problem with the end of the ICE if it also seemingly didn't mean everything turning into SUVs. At the moment I drive a five metre long estate for practical reasons, I don't want a four-and-a-bit metres long SUV or crossover or whatever with the frontal area of a locomotive but no actual cargo space. Even less a full size SUV that has more dimensions in common with that locomotive than just the frontal area.
It's said to be because the batteries take up room under the floor so the cars become taller. I call BS and dare someone to stretch the car longitudinally which allows for a thinner battery, a lower body shape, a smaller frontal area and as a result noticably improved aerodynamics (shouldn't efficiency be all the rage with an EV anyway?) as well as a lower CoG leading to better handling. In other words I want an affordable version of the Taycan Cross Turismo's layout.
It's said to be because the batteries take up room under the floor so the cars become taller. I call BS and dare someone to stretch the car longitudinally which allows for a thinner battery, a lower body shape, a smaller frontal area and as a result noticably improved aerodynamics (shouldn't efficiency be all the rage with an EV anyway?) as well as a lower CoG leading to better handling. In other words I want an affordable version of the Taycan Cross Turismo's layout.
- 11,805
- Marin County
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
I think you could almost turn any sailboat into it. Just remove the sail and attach a wind turbine to the mast (and run electrical, etc.). Here's a small scale version of what you're talking about. They use a wind generator on the mast to power electronics on the boat.
Last edited:
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
Yeah, that was a cool vid. Was amusing they were all terrified of him actually doing a decent speed in it...
Not even slightly viable in passenger cars though. A big part of the function of that thing is clearly based around the ratio of its weight/aero and tyre drag/surface area in a way that you'd never get close to in a regular car.
The thing earlier definitely seems very snake-oily. Anything above 40mph or so aero drag is basically the dominant factor in efficiency and speed. While I imagine you could feed charge back to batteries with that method, but less than you'd lose by not having enormous drag-causing intakes in the first place. Minimising frontal area and drag coefficient are always going to be the most effective improvements outside of the motor and battery technology itself.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
..and going a single direction... downwind.
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
- 23,921
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I was parked up sat in my car the other day when a Merc EQC wafted past and parked up close by. It was parked between some regular, non SUV, cars but i noticed that it had no extra ground clearance over any of them. I know its roughly an electrified GLC, but it appears to have no pretence to being off-roadable unlike most SUVs.
I wonder if Merc is placing narrower batteries in a compartment beneath the shell, compromising ride height for interior space?
You can clearly see the difference in ride height between the two:
The EQC has a much deeper sill area, which gives it a more people carrier profile than SUV.
- 5,971
- Finland
It may very well be, while many others are just expanding the entire car upwards when there isn't ride height to sacrifice.
But still the question remains: where did Porsche cram the batteries in the Taycan Cross Turismo as it was low to begin with and they have actually increased the ride height? And most importantly, why on earth can't others do the same?
- 5,069
- Panama City, FL
So a few days ago GM issued it's second recall for the Chevy Bolt, due to the possibility of fire in the batteries during charging. Last week they advised owners of Bolts to not park them indoors, and not leave them plugged in to charge overnight. So you can't park in the garage, and you have to hope whatever charge you got into it before unplugging it at bedtime is enough to get you through the next day. Yeah, that makes the car very desirable, and I'd be so happy that I bought one... had I actually bought one.
This also inspires such confidence in their upcoming Ultium EV program. OK, maybe they've learned some things, maybe things are different enough in the Ultium, but c'mon... this is GM!!! The Northstar engine, whose head bolts would pop out of the block (bringing threads with them,) the Pontiac Aztek (the perfectly developed on-goal car that nobody ever asked for,) the Chevrolet Chevette and Vega, grand experiments in compact cars, but still rear-wheel-drive packaging. Ooh, the Citation, where they finally went front-drive, but couldn't be stopped safely because of high rear brake bias? (We forgot the rear is lighter without a live axle back there...) How about the V-8 Monza, that you had to remove the radiator and jack the engine off of its mounts and move it forward for a spark plug change because the rear plugs were inside the firewall?
Not a fan of GM's engineering prowess, and not confident about their EV offerings. GM is a marketing company, not an automobile company. They make a product and then try to make it attractive through marketing.
(Not that I have an opinion on the matter...
)
This also inspires such confidence in their upcoming Ultium EV program. OK, maybe they've learned some things, maybe things are different enough in the Ultium, but c'mon... this is GM!!! The Northstar engine, whose head bolts would pop out of the block (bringing threads with them,) the Pontiac Aztek (the perfectly developed on-goal car that nobody ever asked for,) the Chevrolet Chevette and Vega, grand experiments in compact cars, but still rear-wheel-drive packaging. Ooh, the Citation, where they finally went front-drive, but couldn't be stopped safely because of high rear brake bias? (We forgot the rear is lighter without a live axle back there...) How about the V-8 Monza, that you had to remove the radiator and jack the engine off of its mounts and move it forward for a spark plug change because the rear plugs were inside the firewall?
Not a fan of GM's engineering prowess, and not confident about their EV offerings. GM is a marketing company, not an automobile company. They make a product and then try to make it attractive through marketing.
(Not that I have an opinion on the matter...
)
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,365
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Recalls happen and it's not like vehicles spontaneously combusting is a new thing. Hyundai and Kia have been plagued with this issue for years now, resulting in millions of affected vehicles.
Similar threads
