fzanetti Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/o532gm German auto giant and electric vehicle maker announce alliance. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Daimler AG and Tesla Motorsannounced Tuesday that they will partner to manufacture electric cars. As part of the agreement, German automaker Daimler said it had acquired an equity stake of nearly 10% in San Carlos, Calif.-based Tesla Motors. The companies said the alliance will "make electro mobility a reality." "Our strategic partnership is an important step to accelerate the commercialization of electric drives globally," said Thomas Weber, member of the Board of Daimler AG, in a press release. Tesla Motors designs and manufactures electric vehicles. Its battery-powered Roadster is the only highway-capable production electric vehicle for sale in North America and Europe. 0:00 /01:52Competing electric cars The announcement comes as the Obama administration is due to propose stricter fuel economy standards in a bid to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturers have been in a race to tap the market for battery-powered vehicles. Daimler has spent years focused on the research and development of emission-free vehicles and electric batteries. Electric carmakers, meanwhile, have hit some speed bumps amid the economic downturn. Tesla recently had to push back the debut of its four-door sedan, a more affordable alternative to its luxurious Roadster. Tesla expects to begin producing the Model S in late 2011. It originally had been due out in 2010. Last month, Daimler reached an agreement with Chrysler and owner Cerberus Capital Management to exit its 19.9% stake in the company. Flavio Zanetti Boston, MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godwhomismike Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Daimler will probably suck them completely dry, steal all the good technology, and dump Tesla just like they did with Chrysler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Daimler will probably suck them completely dry, steal all the good technology, and dump Tesla just like they did with Chrysler. Wait, are you trying to imply that Chrysler had all this great technology to steal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzanetti Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 Wait, are you trying to imply that Chrysler had all this great technology to steal? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You made me almost choke my coffee now man... Flavio Zanetti Boston, MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishbone Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Daimler will probably suck them completely dry, steal all the good technology, and dump Tesla just like they did with Chrysler. They dumped Chrysler once they realized the patient was really dead, even after numerous attempts at resuscitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 "Gee, I sucked all the blood out, what do you mean he's MORE dead now?" At least they had cash reserves, and a slight product road map before Daimler bought Chrysler. They had neither by the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 They dumped Chrysler once they realized the patient was really dead, even after numerous attempts at resuscitation. I could debate that. Daimlers reliability was far worse than Chryslers in 2005, and the fact the SRT-8 300 kicked ass on their cars costing 5X as much, angered and may have scared them. I know many people in Chrysler, Daimler just wanted to learn how to develop and bring to market cars as fast and as cheaply as Chrysler had learned to do. Daimler had nothing to do with the Hemi comeback, which is a supremely good motor. Chrysler also has one of, if not the best, RWD automatic transmission in the domestic market, the 545RFE. 100% Bullet proof, makes the NAG1 transmission from Daimler a piece of shit in terms of warranty expense. I would argue this to my death bed. As a service manager of a Chrylser/Dodge dealer I will tell you their major problems stemed from Daimler influenced electronics, shitty suppliers for suspension parts (ball joints, tierod ends cooked at 25k) and freaking water leaks. I know because I was responsible for all the warranty. Chryslers demise is due to not building good cars. They do trucks, thats all they know how to do. ANYWAY, back on topic (sorry:redface:), I was saying today to someone if I could get an affordable electric car as capable as the Tesla, and the goverment put the infrastructure in place so I could plug the car in to recharge, I'd but one in a N.Y. second. I hope this leads to something tangible for us some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 They do trucks, thats all they know how to do. They do truck frames, and suspensions. That's about it. The only really good truck motor they have is made by Cummins, and until quite recently they couldn't figure out how to make an automatic transmission that would last behind one, although I hear the NV5600 6 speed manual was pretty tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzanetti Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 I could debate that. Daimlers reliability was far worse than Chryslers in 2005, and the fact the SRT-8 300 kicked ass on their cars costing 5X as much, angered and may have scared them. I know many people in Chrysler, Daimler just wanted to learn how to develop and bring to market cars as fast and as cheaply as Chrysler had learned to do. Daimler had nothing to do with the Hemi comeback, which is a supremely good motor. Chrysler also has one of, if not the best, RWD automatic transmission in the domestic market, the 545RFE. 100% Bullet proof, makes the NAG1 transmission from Daimler a piece of shit in terms of warranty expense. I would argue this to my death bed. As a service manager of a Chrylser/Dodge dealer I will tell you their major problems stemed from Daimler influenced electronics, shitty suppliers for suspension parts (ball joints, tierod ends cooked at 25k) and freaking water leaks. I know because I was responsible for all the warranty. Chryslers demise is due to not building good cars. They do trucks, thats all they know how to do. ANYWAY, back on topic (sorry:redface:), I was saying today to someone if I could get an affordable electric car as capable as the Tesla, and the goverment put the infrastructure in place so I could plug the car in to recharge, I'd but one in a N.Y. second. I hope this leads to something tangible for us some day. I drove one Tesla that was a demo in California this year, and let me tell you!!!! It was amazing.... Lots of power (a.k.a torque from the get go...). Give me a 35-40k luxury sedan capable of going 0-60 in less than 5 secs, and at least 135mph (even though we would not use it all here but), I would definitely put a deposit onto one... Flavio Zanetti Boston, MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 How far do you think an electric car will go at 135mph... The problem isn't the electric motors not being up to par. The problem is one of energy density and usage rate. Batteries cannot currently hold, discharge, or re-charge energy at that rate. When you start to try to charge at multiples of their discharge rate (referred to usually as the variable 'C') then you start to get into wiring and battery heat and damage issues. In order to carry that much capacitance onboard, the batteries have to weigh a LOT, and take up almost all the spare space. When you charge AT the 'C' rate, it will probably take hours to recharge. That doesn't take into account the aspects of handling high-current DC voltage safely enough for your average inattentive human, power grid and other transmissive or storage losses, or increased demand on already outdated power grids and generation infrastructure that is already under environmentalist political pressure... The north east and the south west have brown outs already in the heat of summer... what is a lot more electrical demand going to do to that... That also doesn't get into the inherent safety problems with exposing a lithium based battery to an oxygen atmosphere, if the battery were to get ruptured, like in a car accident. Lithium combusts VERY easily, as do all of the chemicals in the first periodic column. Water is so prevalent because hydrogen doesn't exist on this planet without being chemically bonded to another element, and Oxygen is chemically extremely compatible with elements that have one outer electron. Exothermic oxidation... is combustion. FIRE, and very hot fire, that sometimes doesn't even require a significant ignition source. The chemicals are so attractive to each other that they can sometimes auto-ignite. Unlike fuel, a battery's substrate is not consumed as energy content, The substrate just hosts an electrical charge on it's surface. It does wear out chemically, in it's ability to hold a charge. So it is always heavy, it always takes up lots of space, it doesn't hold the equivalent amount of energy as a liquid fuel, and it depletes over time with the number of charge/discharge cycles. The problem is with energy storage. Electricity is not all that efficiently stored in those sorts of quantities on a mobile platform as small as a car's driveline space. Liquid fuel, as stored chemical energy, that is consumed and converted, is far, far, far more space efficient, easier to handle, and energy-content dense than a battery. It is a strange thing... Hybrid builders are trying to add too much complexity by pairing mechanical and electrical systems in an afterthought sort of way... Taking two existing technologies, and forcing them together, rather than taking a fresh look at the engineering and designing an electro-mechanical drive system from the science up. And electric car makers are trying to make electrical storage work, when electrical storage is at a distinct dis-advantage to liquid fuel internal combustion, even to generate on-board electricity. That is why I still think a car designed for electric drive at the base chassis level, and also designed for an on-board power-plant to generate that electricity, with a modestly appropriate amount of electrical surge capacitance on-board, is the most sound approach. Hydrogen is too tricky, risky, and hard to handle, so fuel-cells aren't really the answer. They work in the cold of space, because they need cryogenics anyway, and rockets run on hydrogen based fuel as it is... That doesn't make it practical for public road use. Micro-nuclear is not feasible with current technology... Solar and aero-generated power doesn't provide nearly enough current, otherwise there would already be solar and wind powered perpetual motion machines... The only thing left is internal combustion of organic liquids. petrochemical fuel, whatever their source may be... even algae diesel, or liquified natural gas... Piston engines are nicely flexible in engine-speed, with practically instant response, but low-ish efficiency, and are somewhat finicky about the grade of liquid fuel they run well with. You can't feed a gas engine diesel fuel, basically... People put turbos on them to increase efficiency... But I ask, why put a whole separate, heavy piston engine between the compressor and impeller... Why not put a combustion stage between the compressor and impeller, and make the turbo BE the engine.... Oh, that would be a turboshaft 'jet' engine. Ok... Not every jet engine is as big as the ones on the 747. They can scale down all the way to the point that they can fit in home-built model RC planes. If they were simplified, and mass produced on a level for the auto industry's demand for numbers, size, and power output, they probably wouldn't even be all that expensive, as they have fewer individually-moving parts. Turbine engines are much more efficient than piston engines (hence why aircraft adopted them...) and can be more flexible to burn a greater range of fuels, and can burn them more thoroughly. I've talked about this before, the two drawbacks. slower throttle response... That is where instant-torque electric drive motors come in, and de-couple the turbine speed from the ground speed. The turbine speed stays at a more efficient, more steady state. heat. Always the issue, but with a compressed air engine... you have a supply of relatively cool compressed air, after the first stage compressor... which is usually used as bypass air, and pressurized air cooling of engine parts. Such bypass air can be diffused into the hot exhaust, to cool it down. A turboshaft also doesn't rely on hot gas pressure thrust. We aren't talking about a fighter-jet, after all... It harnesses heat and pressure to turn an output mechanical shaft, like a turbocharger does. With an efficient impeller stage, the heat and pressure are turned into mechanical torque energy... so less of the heat and pressure are vented to exhaust, where a cooling diffuser stage could further tame the exhaust heat. Such an engine, sized properly for a car, probably just a slight bit bigger than a Mazda Rotary, which is a physically small, space efficient engine itself, could turn an electric generator (which in reverse action, would be the engine's starter...) that is co-axial on the turbine's output shaft. A reduction gear might be needed, but not a multi-ratio transmission, as we currently know it. Plus, as I said, with a bit of modest electrical storage, as a surge buffer, it could hold enough charge to move the car around a parking lot, without even engaging the turbine engine at all, but then on the road, not suffer from the problem of very limited range, and long re-charge time, which makes distance driving a practical kybosh on a purely electric storage platform. But, Tesla isn't building a series hybrid from the ground up, nor are any of the hybrid manufacturers, who are just cramming existing automobile platforms full of extra electrical complexity for a couple of extra MPG... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 They do truck frames, and suspensions. That's about it. The only really good truck motor they have is made by Cummins, and until quite recently they couldn't figure out how to make an automatic transmission that would last behind one, although I hear the NV5600 6 speed manual was pretty tough. The latest Cummins mates to an Asian 6 speed, thats how:lol:. Trust me, the Hemi motor is a good piece mated to the 545RFE trans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Hybrids are great for city drivers. Hats off to Ford for producing great hybrids so far. Full electric cars will need a giant leap in battery technology to be embraced by US consumers at this point. Range at high speeds, as you pointed out, is a problem. And as I said, an infrastructure to recharge or "top off" wherever you park is another must. I still like the Tesla, we need to start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Turbine engines are much more efficient than piston engines (hence why aircraft adopted them...) and can be more flexible to burn a greater range of fuels, and can burn them more thoroughly. .. Incorrect. Gas turbines are less efficient at ground level, than reciprocating engines, only at altitude are they more efficient, that is the reason they were adopted by the aircraft industry. They also give a much greater power output per lb of weight, another attractive feature when you want it to fly. They are also much more expensive to produce, and are not as responsive as piston engines. Double Award Winning Legacy GT Wagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactojesse Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Wait, are you trying to imply that Chrysler had all this great technology to steal? Before the Daimler-Chrysler merger, all Chrysler had was full-size trucks, a mid-sized truck based on an ancient Dodge Diplomat frame (Dakota), SUVs, and horrid FWD cars and minivans that traced their lineage to the K-car. The merger gave them the LX platform, which is one of the main reasons why Chrysler's made it this far before imploding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The latest Cummins mates to an Asian 6 speed, thats how:lol:. Trust me, the Hemi motor is a good piece mated to the 545RFE trans. I know a couple guys who have broken the auto hooked up to the srt-8 charger and 300cs. But all those guys were making 600+hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Re: PhilT's comments... Altitude efficiency can be compensated in compressor design, otherwise turbochargers wouldn't work very well at ground level. An engine system designed for ground use would probably do fine. Trains and military tanks, and other things use turbines at ground level, when designed to do so. Output per pound of weight, and per cubic foot of volume is also attractive in a car, although probably not as vital as with an aircraft. If a turbine can allow a car to be lighter by having a smaller turbine engine that is designed to a near-steady state power output, matched to targets for eletrical generation efficiency, it could be quite small. Being small, and also being less imperatively redundant and robust... (car engines are not built to the same standards as aero engines, for obvious reasons, and the fact that ultimate reliability is required to counter against an aeronautic crash...), and with considerations for mass production, and MUCH MUCH MUCH larger economies of scale and interchangeability of parts, the cost of building a small turboshaft engine could come down to attainable levels, I would think. Again, if people can build little tiny jet turbine engines for RC planes that are affordable for hobby use, I think a middle ground can be found between that and a giant GE or P&W jet engine, that would be suitable for cars. It may not exist exactly, until someone builds one for that intent. that is what R&D is for. The responsiveness is something I already mentioned. With it being basically an on-board liquid-fuel electrical power plant, it isn't connected to road speed physically, the electric drive motors handle that, and also double as regenerative braking systems, as well. Without being mechanically connected to road speed, the turbine would not need to be ultra responsive, or even get much out of it's optimum efficiency range. With an electric supply buffer, you wouldn't even need to start up the turbine just to move the car a short distance, or idle the turbine engine when it is not needed to keep up electrical current. But having ONLY batteries is far too limiting, and having a piston engine driving a generator is sacrificing other things like fuel flexibility and efficiency of burn, momentum sacrifice of a reciprocating assembly when a generator is not reciprocating. Piston engines, or rotary engines, or even axial flow piston engines could be made to drive a generator... but are they as well suited and efficient for the task as a small 2-stage diagonal flow compressor turboshaft, at turning organic liquid fuel into heat, and heat into rotational torque, and doing it reliably within the confines of a device the size of an automobile, while making the automobile system BETTER at the same time, rather than just more complex. The flexibility of engine speed that a piston engine has, is fantastic for mechanical drive, directly to the ground, through gears. That advantage is nullified when talking about near-steady-state electrical generation, and other things like rotational balance, momentum conservation, and even fuel grade flexibility start to become more advantageous features. Energy output density for weight and size (X amount of power from less weight and less space) would be a boon for automobiles to be able to have better aerodynamics, continue to use strong safety structures with their weight being offset by lighter 'power plant', rather than just being additional weight, and having more packaging flexibility within the chassis. It sounds like turbines, if properly designed for the application, would be great for that. This is what I am talking about... going back to the science, and the engineering, and re-thinking the systems of an automobile, not just trying to fit pieces from two different puzzles together, and wondering why there are gaps, and the picture doesn't look right. Make a new puzzle with pieces designed for each other, that make a new picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The latest Cummins mates to an Asian 6 speed, thats how:lol:. Trust me, the Hemi motor is a good piece mated to the 545RFE trans. The Hemi is OK nut by no means the class leader in the 1/2 ton market with the 545RFE. It is outgunned by both the GM 6.2L with the 6L80E (6 speed), and the Toyota 5.7L with it's 6 speed as both out accelerate the Hemi combo empty, and loaded down with a trailer. Both also get better fuel economy than the Hemi too. Frankly a gas motor in a 3/4 or 1 ton is silly if you ask me. If you really need one of those big bastards it means you have heavy hauling, or heavy towing to do. Buy a diesel, gassers need not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Incorrect. Gas turbines are less efficient at ground level, than reciprocating engines, only at altitude are they more efficient, that is the reason they were adopted by the aircraft industry. They also give a much greater power output per lb of weight, another attractive feature when you want it to fly. They are also much more expensive to produce, and are not as responsive as piston engines. +1 Union Pacific tried gas turbine engines in locomotives in the 50's and 60's and although they made great power they sucked down fuel so fast they had to attach 24,000 gallon fuel tenders to them, where a diesel electric could make the same trip with a measly 5,000 gallon fuel tank. Throttle response was apparently atrocious so they couldn't be used as switchers. The noise was so horrendous the units were banned from operating in most cities. The only way they were cost effective was to run at full throttle pulling heavy tonnage non stop in rural areas, and even then the units were phased out for more efficient diesels in the early 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Trains and military tanks, and other things use turbines at ground level, when designed to do so. About the only tank I know of to use a turbine is the Abrams, and from what I understand it was selected for performance and compactness. I've been around tanks a good little bit and they are anything but fuel efficient no matter what they are powered with. You will not find many trains using gas turbines for power, they use way too much fuel. Union Pacific tried it decades ago and gave up on the idea. Recently Bombardier has introduced a gas turbine powered locomotive and has not sold a single one for road service anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 There again, turbines directly mechanically connected to the wheels, or idling for periods of time are not efficient, I am talking about AVOIDING that behavior, not to mention the technical advancements in the last 40+ years. What I have suggested would not stand idle like a locomotive does. If it wouldn't be needed to generate electricity, it would be shut down. Idle fuel consumption is a turbine drawback, but I don't suggest that it would spend a lot of time idling. People love to tout start and stop on a piston engine when they stop at a stop light. a broader start-and-stop based on electrical useage would avoid the idle fuel consumption, and not waste fuel. If it is burning fuel, it is generating kilowatts. If kilowatts aren't needed, then the powerplant shuts down, or even runs a short distance on a modest battery stack, for just that reason. Performance and compactness... sounds good, but again Abrams uses a turbine connected to a hydraulic drive system, which is fluid-mechanical drive. That is still trying to use a turbine the way most things use a mechanical-drive piston engine. That is absolutely NOT what I suggest. What about being COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED from road speed and mechanical drive is not clear? Why don't power stations use steam-driven pistons to power their electrical generators? They use steam driven turbine impellers to drive generators. I am not suggesting that a stanley steamer needs a resurgence, or that generating steam on-board is a good idea. But petro-fuel can power a turbine, and then a generator, which is what I suggest. Basically a mini electrical power plant on board, to power ELECTRIC drive, instead of using a BIG power plant a long ways away, and all the inefficiencies of transmitting electricity, and charging on-board battery storage as the ONLY means of powering an electric drive. I am not talking about driving WHEELS, wheel trucks, or tank tracks directly with a turboshaft engine. I am talking about generating electricity with a SMALL turboshaft engine, with an electrical drive system. I used tanks and trains as an illustration that turbines can run at ground-level atmospheric pressure, and less than air-travel speeds, by having a properly designed compression stage. Not that they were ideal drive units, mechanically. There is a reason that people still build fuel-based RC cars, planes and helicopters, with the availability of common electric drive. Because a fuel based vehicle can be fueled in minutes or seconds, and have much longer run-time/power ratio than a battery powered vehicle. The principle is the same for 1:1 scale models, and the batteries are all the more expensive. Chevy Volt is talking about a goal of 40 miles of battery power, and it will be FULL of batteries, PLUS still having a fuel-piston-generator on-board. Why not make the battery system smaller, even to 4 miles of non-fuel range with high-discharge rate batteries as a buffer, and then make the on board electrical generation plant actually ideal for the purpose of generating electricity from fuel. an un-balanced pulsating piston engine is not the best option, merely the most commonly currently available option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 There again, turbines directly mechanically connected to the wheels, or idling for periods of time are not efficient, I am talking about AVOIDING that behavior, not to mention the technical advancements in the last 40+ years. What I have suggested would not stand idle like a locomotive does. If it wouldn't be needed to generate electricity, it would be shut down. Idle fuel consumption is a turbine drawback, but I don't suggest that it would spend a lot of time idling. People love to tout start and stop on a piston engine when they stop at a stop light. a broader start-and-stop based on electrical useage would avoid the idle fuel consumption, and not waste fuel. If it is burning fuel, it is generating kilowatts. If kilowatts aren't needed, then the powerplant shuts down, or even runs a short distance on a modest battery stack, for just that reason. Performance and compactness... sounds good, but again Abrams uses a turbine connected to a hydraulic drive system, which is fluid-mechanical drive. That is still trying to use a turbine the way most things use a mechanical-drive piston engine. That is absolutely NOT what I suggest. What about being COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED from road speed and mechanical drive is not clear? Why don't power stations use steam-driven pistons to power their electrical generators? They use steam driven turbine impellers to drive generators. I am not talking about driving WHEELS, wheel trucks, or tank tracks directly with a turboshaft engine. I am talking about generating electricity with a SMALL turboshaft engine, with an electrical drive system. I used tanks and trains as an illustration that turbines can run at ground-level atmospheric pressure, and less than air-travel speeds, by having a properly designed compression stage. Not that they were ideal drive units, mechanically. The turbines on those locomotives were not mechanically linked to the wheels. They were used to produce electricity for traction motors, and they used way way way too much fuel even under ideal conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think ls1s should power all planes, trains and automobiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think ls1s should power all planes, trains and automobiles I know you are kidding, but I would like to see how long it would take to blow up an LS1 trying to even move a 410,000lb locomotive much less one coupled on to a couple of thousand tons worth of rail cars. I'll bet you could melt it down, stall it out, or otherwise frag an LS1 in that application in roughly 45 seconds to a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I know you are kidding, but I would like to see how long it would take to blow up an LS1 trying to even move a 410,000lb locomotive much less one coupled on to a couple of thousand tons worth of rail cars. I'll bet you could melt it down, stall it out, or otherwise frag an LS1 in that application in roughly 45 seconds to a minute. They run FOREVER no matter what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Why don't power stations use steam-driven pistons to power their electrical generators? They use steam driven turbine impellers to drive generators. I am not suggesting that a stanley steamer needs a resurgence, or that generating steam on-board is a good idea. But petro-fuel can power a turbine, and then a generator, which is what I suggest. Basically a mini electrical power plant on board, to power ELECTRIC drive, instead of using a BIG power plant a long ways away, and all the inefficiencies of transmitting electricity, and charging on-board battery storage as the ONLY means of powering an electric drive. Electrical power generation which uses steam turbines is generally powered by coal, heavy fuels or natural gas, all much cheaper than distillate fuels and not practical for personal means of transportation. Steam as a means of propulsion is so inefficient it was phased out in the 60's. Electrical generation in remote outstations such as Caribbean Islands, use diesels to power the alternators. Double Award Winning Legacy GT Wagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.