Automaker Fisker recalls some 2,400 Karmas for cooling fan issue

MoSurveyor said:

Most hybrids don't operate like trains. The engine isn't just providing power for the electric motor, it's also turning gears under certain conditions. That design makes Diesel engines less efficient because electric motors also have their highest torque on the low end instead of mid-range like a gas engine. Electric engines and gas engines compliment each other as long as the gas engine isn't just turning a generator.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps that is the problem with the systems and the cause of the inefficiencies, or at least some of them. Why not just put a small diesel motor turning a generator, apply generated power to electric motor. Since you brought it up, why do they insist on high rpm electric motors mounted at the wheels? Has anyone actually done a power consumption evaluation on whether we would need more or less power if we simply ran the output of the electric motor through the standard drive train? If electric motors actually develope more torque on the low end, and torgue is what actually does the work, then why would gearing the motor to run at much lower rpms be less efficeint that running them directly at such high rpms?

Tubine engines were not used on cars in the past because they were too impractical. The Army does use one in their M1 tanks. Would a turbine constant speed engine turning the generator be more efficient?

DA60 said:

'Fisker Automotive, a green car company that received funding from the U.S. government, is recalling about 2,400 Karma plug-in hybrids to repair a faulty cooling fan unit that was the cause of a vehicle fire in Woodside, California last week.

The Anaheim, California-based automaker, founded in 2007, said the August 10 fire began in front of the left wheel, where the low temperature cooling fan is located. An "internal fault" caused the sealed unit to fail, starting a slow burning fire, Fisker said in a statement on Saturday....

...Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Energy denied Fisker access to more than half of a $529-million government loan awarded in 2009 due to delays in the Karma launch.'

Automaker Fisker recalls some 2,400 Karmas for cooling fan issue | Reuters

Click to expand...

That DOES sound like a lot of bad Karma for Fisker. LOL.

DVSentinel said:

And what is the predicted enviromental impact of bad batteries and battery manufacture? Few people even seem to take this into consideration. We put less crap into the air, but where do we store all those chemical batteries when they can no longer be used. Isn't that one of the arguments about Nuclear, where do we store the waste?

Man, I wish that we had diesel powered SUVs, light trucks, etc. Wonder what the mileage difference would be on a Volt if it used a 1.4L TD instead of the 1.4L gas motor? Considering the torgue difference at low end, a diesel can turn a generator a lot more efficiently than a gas motor can. Most gas motors have to be up around 3000+ rpm to maximise efficiency in the engine under heavy load, a TD would chug along very efficiently at less than 2000 rpm, heck, a lot of diesels used in industry for generators and such cannot even reach a 1000 rpm. Quick someone out there swap a VW TD motor into a Volt and tell us what you get.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but to be fair, batteries can be recycled, radioactive waste is more problematic. I personally believe synthetic diesel is the best option, simply because we won't have to build an entirely new infrastructure to facilitate it. Hell, we won't even need automakers to change too terribly much.

DVSentinel said:

Then perhaps that is the problem with the systems and the cause of the inefficiencies, or at least some of them. Why not just put a small diesel motor turning a generator, apply generated power to electric motor. Since you brought it up, why do they insist on high rpm electric motors mounted at the wheels? Has anyone actually done a power consumption evaluation on whether we would need more or less power if we simply ran the output of the electric motor through the standard drive train? If electric motors actually develope more torque on the low end, and torgue is what actually does the work, then why would gearing the motor to run at much lower rpms be less efficeint that running them directly at such high rpms?

Tubine engines were not used on cars in the past because they were too impractical. The Army does use one in their M1 tanks. Would a turbine constant speed engine turning the generator be more efficient?

Click to expand...

I believe turbines are not very efficient, i have not done much research into them, but I do believe they are not as efficient as piston engines, more powerfull given for a given size and weight yes, but not as efficient.

As for your first suggestion

The ultimate would be a diesel engine powering a generator directly, (excess power stored in the battery pack) and using the electric motor to power the wheels. Diesels are far more efficient then gasoline engines, and all combustion engines have a specific speed that they run most efficiently at. Having the IC engine separated from the driving wheels would allow for that (assuming the battery pack always maintains a minimum charge to provide extra acceleration then when the generator can provide with the diesel running at a constant speed.

The Volt was originally report to do the above, have the IC separated from the driving wheels, but was later clarified to state that certain speeds the IC engine does power the wheels directly

DVSentinel said:

Then perhaps that is the problem with the systems and the cause of the inefficiencies, or at least some of them. Why not just put a small diesel motor turning a generator, apply generated power to electric motor.

Click to expand...

That would make them more like trains. Most electrics don't operate this way but I seem to remember reading about one that did - though I don't remember which one it was. It was probably in Europe.

DVSentinel said:

Since you brought it up, why do they insist on high rpm electric motors mounted at the wheels? Has anyone actually done a power consumption evaluation on whether we would need more or less power if we simply ran the output of the electric motor through the standard drive train?

Click to expand...

I'm sure they've done computer modeling for that but even on it's face it's a bad idea. On a standard drive-train the transmission has loses of 16-20% for manuals, 20-24% for automatics, not counting any gearing. Electrics often have a gear ratio but it's fixed - no transmission. That ~22% power loss is a killer, though, as is the extra weight the transmission adds.

DVSentinel said:

If electric motors actually develope more torque on the low end, and torgue is what actually does the work, then why would gearing the motor to run at much lower rpms be less efficeint that running them directly at such high rpms?

Click to expand...

Because of the mechanical loss as noted above. Better to have direct drive and design the motor for higher RPM's so the range with the most use has fairly good torque. If an electric is designed to go 100 MPH then driving at 50 MPH is at half it's rated RPMs.

The straight line below is a standard torque profile for electric motors, the curved one is power. This is just an example of a idealized electric motor. The actual design RPMs differ from vehicle to vehicle.



http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html

DVSentinel said:

Tubine engines were not used on cars in the past because they were too impractical. The Army does use one in their M1 tanks. Would a turbine constant speed engine turning the generator be more efficient?

Click to expand...

I have no idea.

MoSurveyor said:

I have no idea.

Click to expand...

I would say yes, just because the turbine engine itself is more mechanically efficient, but they're far more expensive to buy, fuel, and maintain.

Surtr said:

I would say yes, just because the turbine engine itself is more mechanically efficient, but they're far more expensive to buy, fuel, and maintain.

Click to expand...

You also have to consider size. I've seen the turbine in the old early-60s Chrysler car. It's not very big, smaller than a modern V-6, IIRC, and noisy! A turbine to run a generator wouldn't need to be even that big.

MoSurveyor said:

You also have to consider size. I've seen the turbine in the old early-60s Chrysler car. It's not very big, smaller than a modern V-6, IIRC, and noisy! A turbine to run a generator wouldn't need to be even that big.

Click to expand...

That too. The only things with turbines I've been around were helos and tanks. Huge engines, high decibels, lots of fuel. The work done to those things has to be extensive too. Turbine engines, as great as they are, are pretty damn fragile in comparison to other engine/motor types.

I'm a huge proponent of synthetic diesel. Even though it's not as efficient as electric, it's familiar, it's simple, it has already established itself and been proven to work, the car/truck doesn't have to change much at all, if at all, and we don't have to change every fuel station in the US. The car can be changed as many times as we want, but without support from fuel stations, knowledgeable mechanics and technicians, and the abilities of the manufacturers themselves, that vehicle isn't going far.

AdamT said:

I'm not sure what the long introduction has to do with your conclusion that electricity is not a good answer for powering cars. For one thing -- while you are correct that it takes X amount of power to move a car Y distance -- hybrids and electrics have the ability to reclaim some of the wasted energy from braking. For another, direct drive electronic drivetrains are inherently more efficient than oil-based drivetrains which lose a lot of power through the transmission. And ultimately, electric vehicles are the most flexible option as the power source can be updated at any time. Not ready for primetime yet, but getting closer all the time.

Click to expand...

Eh....I ramble a lot. I...basically have no explanation for my long as intro, lol. They have the ability to reclaim some of the energy RELEASED by breaking, no wasted. Stopping, in my opinion, is not a waste of energy. And the energy they are reclaiming is just enough to run the radio for about 5 minutes...unless you are racing around an autocross track, and like to break late into the turns. Which I don't advise, for a hybrid, because they tend towards the heavy.

Direct drive loses less power due to no traditional drive train, true, but they then lose that gain due to their weight. Also, petrol drive trains have gotten loads better, and are getting better all the time. Consider...the Borg Warner Super T-10 4 speed in my vette...I have about 370hp at the motor, and 420 torque. On a rolling dyno, though, I'd be lucky to see 300 of that the wheels, and 365 torque. Now look at the brand new Z06. 505 hp on the motor, and dynos, consistently, at 480 to the wheels. That's a HUGE improvement, and it happened, really, over the span on only TWO transmission design lifetimes. As for flexibility, yeah, sure. But that, too, comes at a high costs. Efficiency. Again, grab yourself a drill, plug it into the wall, and run it. Now, put a 500 foot extension cord in the middle, and run it. Watch as your lights go dim. Now multiply that by 10,000, and you'll have an idea of how much electricity is "wasted" just to get it to you, to power your car. Not saying electricity is not the answer...but, before we step up the demand for it, we need to work on the delivery system. We need to better understand electricity, first. And we need better ways of producing it. Else, we are simply trading the devil we know for the one we don't.

EagleAye said:

If electricity is just a lousy idea, then maybe we shouldn't use it to power our houses, right? I mean, EVERYBODY lives within 500 ft of a electricity-making coal plant, right?

And I don't see where you're getting your numbers from regarding hybrids that only get 20 mpg and electrics that go only 32 miles. The Chevy Volt gets 40mpg highway (37mpg combined).
Cost to go 25 miles on electric only: $1.08
Cost to go 25 miles on gas only: $2.72
Fuel Economy of the 2012 Chevrolet Volt

The all-electric Nissan Leaf will get 138 miles under perfect conditions. Under realistic conditions, it will get about 70 miles with the A/C on.
Nissan Leaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And given that a HUGE amount of our existing infrastructure is already devoted to moving electricity around, I don't see how electric cars could possibly be a step backward.

Click to expand...

You must be confusing me with someone else...I have not once stated fuel economy figures for hybrid or electric cars. Because I am a car person. I know that all those numbers are bogus. The most important thing to consider with fuel economy is driving style. Someone in a V8 corvette can easily get better fuel economy by just driving like a sane individual than someone in a hybrid, who drives like the typical soccer mom, who views every stop sign and light as a chance to drag race...to the next stop sign or light. And to be honest, the Chevy Volt 40mpg number is pretty sad. Again, 14 years ago, I drove a car built by honda that could do 48mpg, easily, and see me into the 50s if I was careful. 14 years ago. In a regular old, gas burning car. I'm not so much denouncing hyrbid or electric technology as I am wondering where the intermediary went? Why not make more fuel efficient gas burners, whilst we WORK on ironing out the kinks, and getting the costs down, on the new tech? Surely THAT would help our carbon footprint, eh?

I don't think we all need to live 500 feet from a power plant. I think we use a LOT less energy to run our houses (most of us....looking at YOU, Al Gore) than we do to operate our automobiles. I have an oil burning furnace with forced air heat. It's a 275 gallon tank, and in the 3 years I have owned this house, I have had it filled 3 times. My electric bill is also quite low, despite electricity being VERY expensive in CT. I can't really calculate how much gas me and the wife use in our cars...and we would use a LOT less than the average person, as we both live within 5 miles of our jobs, daycare, grocery store, etc. But I can tell you, we burn more gas than we do oil in the house.

Now, take the current demand for electricity in the US, and triple it. 60%, or something close to it, of all oil in the US is used for our cars. Try to convert that amount of energy into electricity. Don't you see the problem?

Mason66 said:

I must take issue with this because the Renault engine used was crap and will always be crap.

Of all the engines he could have used he went for Renault.

Bad mistake.

Click to expand...

Some were made with Ford Windsors. 351s.

Mason66 said:

Because the ojority of the car buying public do not want an econobox with no air or any other options.

The Chevy Sprint 3 cylinder was a quick little car that got great gas milage, but it would never take over for a mid size car for somebody that has a family.

Click to expand...

Mine had AC? I bought it used, however...did they not come from the factory with AC?

MoSurveyor said:

Fossil fuels provide less than half of the electrical power in America and that percentage is getting smaller every day.

ICE engines waste a huge amount of energy, mostly as heat, even before the transmissions/gears are factored in. The transmission and other gearing loses another 22-24% for automatics, 16-20% for manuals transmissions. Electric motors are the most efficient motors in the world and few electric cars use a transmission for the electric motor. The electric components of electric cars are extremely efficient as far as how much work is being done compared to the energy put into the system.

Electricity is a step forward. Even now we talk about changing fuels but something as simple as switching to NG/LNG will take a huge amount of investment because the entire infrastructure for automotive fuels is built around gasoline/Diesel. To switch to NG/LNG every gas station in America would need new storage tanks. The existing NG pipelines couldn't handle the increased capacity we'd need. Unlike electricity that can be generated locally from wind/solar and stored, NG is only available in some very exclusive places in the country and needs to be transported - and transported - and transported until it finally gets somewhere that can put it into your car's tank. Or we can replace the millions of miles of NG pipelines in country, which is even more expensive. Then 50-80 years from now, if we switch fuels again, we get to do it all over - re-building the entire fuel distribution infrastructure to meet the new fuel's needs.

Better to switch to electricity now and upgrade the grid as needed (local generation will reduce that need) to be ready for whatever fuel we decide to use in the future. Whatever it is can be used much more efficiently at a fixed, large-scale facility than it can ever be used in a small, mobile application like a car.

Even if we get hydrogen to work it'll still be more efficient to burn it at a fixed, large-scale facility than it will be to burn in a car or truck - and much safer, too.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with about....99% of this post. That 1% about drive train loss on internal combustion motors, though, is wrong. Drive train loss for a good manual is now down to about 10%, and on SOME autos, is as low as 16%, though most still sit at 20% or so.


What about finding a way to make car charge stations stand alone electricity generators?

KevinKohler said:

Mine had AC? I bought it used, however...did they not come from the factory with AC?

Click to expand...

Most likely a rare option

They were called econo boxes not just because of good fuel economy, but because they were cheap to buy. America is generally the last place that accepts that smaller cars can be expensive and luxurious as well as providing good fuel economy

KevinKohler said:

As for flexibility, yeah, sure. But that, too, comes at a high costs. Efficiency. Again, grab yourself a drill, plug it into the wall, and run it. Now, put a 500 foot extension cord in the middle, and run it. Watch as your lights go dim. Now multiply that by 10,000, and you'll have an idea of how much electricity is "wasted" just to get it to you, to power your car. Not saying electricity is not the answer...but, before we step up the demand for it, we need to work on the delivery system. We need to better understand electricity, first. And we need better ways of producing it. Else, we are simply trading the devil we know for the one we don't.

Click to expand...

Transmission losses on the power grid are about 7%.

We've been producing and distributing electrical power longer then there have been Ford's on the road so I'm not sure what you mean by understanding it better.


I'm have no idea what else you might be trying to say here.

MoSurveyor said:

Transmission losses on the power grid are about 7%.

We've been producing and distributing electrical power longer then there have been Ford's on the road so I'm not sure what you mean by understanding it better.


I'm have no idea what else you might be trying to say here.

Click to expand...

I thought it was a lot higher than 7%? Does it vary depending on the area? I recall my electrician saying that losses, or "waste" is around 20%? Maybes that's CT specific, due to the outdated crap we use?


Yes, we have been producing and distributing the stuff for a long time...but when was the last time we've had any major improvements in distribution, post Tesla?

Besides, seems like the simple solution that I didn't even think about till a little while ago was, simply making charge up stations stand alone power producers.

KevinKohler said:

I thought it was a lot higher than 7%? Does it vary depending on the area? I recall my electrician saying that losses, or "waste" is around 20%? Maybes that's CT specific, due to the outdated crap we use?

Yes, we have been producing and distributing the stuff for a long time...but when was the last time we've had any major improvements in distribution, post Tesla?

Click to expand...

Slightly less than 7% is the US average but I'd think it's pretty consistent since all the "sub-grids" are interconnected and use the same, basic method of transmission.

Electric power transmission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KevinKohler said:

You must be confusing me with someone else...I have not once stated fuel economy figures for hybrid or electric cars.

Click to expand...

Okay that was someone else. Apologies.

KevinKohler said:

Now, take the current demand for electricity in the US, and triple it. 60%, or something close to it, of all oil in the US is used for our cars. Try to convert that amount of energy into electricity. Don't you see the problem?

Click to expand...

Actually, that number is off. Check these REALLY BIG numbers below (I apologize for mis-matching years, it's what I got on short notice.)

36.6kWh = 1 gal gas
Gasoline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gallons of Gas used in 2010
2010 - 3,297,528,000 barrels x 42 = 138,496,176,000 gallons (that's 138 Billion gallons of gas!)
2010 Gasoline Consumption | American Fuels

Electricity used in the US 2011
Electricity - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
3,856 billion Kilowatthours (kWh) -- that's 3,856,000,000,000 kWh or 3.856 Trillion kWh used in infrastructure in 2011

36.6 X 138,496,176,000 gallons = 5,068,960,041,600 or 5.068 Trillion kWh used in cars in 2010

So that's not quite double the current US demand for electricity. You claimed triple. Still, the numbers are pretty scary. But we're still not done yet. ICE cars only use a small percent of the energy they consume.

Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.

Click to expand...

Electric car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, 5,068,960,041,600 kWh (energy used by ICE cars) X 0.15 = 760,344,006,240 kWh or 760.3 Billion kWh actually moved all the ICE cars around in 2010.

If all those ICE cars were electric (and electric cars get a whopping 80% efficiency at the wheels) then we get the following:
(this calc may not be the best math so someone correct me if I'm wrong). Since electrics have 80% efficiency, I need more than 760.3 Billion kWh, so 760,344,006,240 X 0.20 = 152,068,801,248.
I add these together to give me 20% more to account for energy lost. So 760,344,006,240 + 152,068,801,248 = 912,412,807,488 or 912.4 Billion kWh.

So what percent of 2011 demand for electricity do I need?
912.4 Billion kWh / 3,856 billion Kilowatthours = 23%

I need 23% more electricity if suddenly tomorrow ALL cars and trucks were suddenly electric. I wouldn't need triple the current electricity, I'd need about 1/4 more.

Granted, that's still a lot of electricity, but as you can see the total amount of energy we would need would be far less.

Actually, it's even lower. I'm directly comparing 36.6kWh = 1 gal gas. But the distance traveled is not equal. The Nissan Leaf needs 34kWh to go 100miles. The Volt needs 37kWh to go 100 miles. If I have an ICE car that gets 40 mpg (VERY efficient for ICE) I need 2.5 galllons to get 100 miles. That equals (2.5 X 36.6) 91.5 kWh. So I need almost three times the energy in an ICE car (a very efficient one) to go the same distance in an EV!
Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KevinKohler said:

Some were made with Ford Windsors. 351s.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of a Delorean having anything but the Renault engine.

The Pantera had the Ford 351 but I don't think the Delorean had it. I don't even think there is room for the V8.

KevinKohler said:

Mine had AC? I bought it used, however...did they not come from the factory with AC?

Click to expand...

If you are talking about the Honda HX, it was sold as a stripped car. If it had AC it was dealer installed, or after the initial sale.

Mason66 said:

I have never heard of a Delorean having anything but the Renault engine.

The Pantera had the Ford 351 but I don't think the Delorean had it. I don't even think there is room for the V8.

Click to expand...

I think you're right, there isn't room for the V-8, at least not without some major modifications. I mean, you can shoe-horn a V-8 into a Vega, too, but it's not easy.

MoSurveyor said:

I think you're right, there isn't room for the V-8, at least not without some major modifications. I mean, you can shoe-horn a V-8 into a Vega, too, but it's not easy.

Click to expand...

I looked it up on google and all I found was V( Conversion.

Even though Delorean was responsible for the GTO, which means big engine samll car, he never fooled around with anything bigger than the Renault engine in his car.

Don't you remember the movie Back To The Future? How many times did the car die on Marty when he needed it the most? That is Renault for you.

Mason66 said:

I looked it up on google and all I found was V( Conversion.

Even though Delorean was responsible for the GTO, which means big engine samll car, he never fooled around with anything bigger than the Renault engine in his car.

Don't you remember the movie Back To The Future? How many times did the car die on Marty when he needed it the most? That is Renault for you.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the GTO, which was based on the Tempest/LeMans line, small but it wasn't a Bonneville, either, just a mid-size for that time. Of course, that's as big or bigger than most 4-dr sport sedans today. My, how things have changed since the Muscle Cars!

You're right about the original engines. I did a little digging and they were not the best engines by far.
And I love BTTF!

MoSurveyor said:

I wouldn't call the GTO, which was based on the Tempest/LeMans line, small but it wasn't a Bonneville, either, just a mid-size for that time. Of course, that's as big or bigger than most 4-dr sport sedans today. My, how things have changed since the Muscle Cars!

You're right about the original engines. I did a little digging and they were not the best engines by far.
And I love BTTF!

Click to expand...

You are right the word small is relative but there was no other car smaller inther Pontiac line at that time, 1964.

They never would have thought the people would be driving around in the little things that are available now.