[SoCalGuy]

Has anyone else ever thought about why Fisker wouldn't just pour more dollars into partnering or engineering itself a dedicated range extender that is more efficient than the loud, noisy and relatively complex Ecotec 4-cyl?

Looks like there are tons of companies out there, each with their own promising tech. One that I came across which looked cool is Bladon Jets (which showcased its tech on the Jag CX-75 concept). Check it out:

http://www.bladonjets.com/applications/automotive/

Some cool features:

- Weighs 95% LESS than conventional piston engine/range extender
- Uses NO OIL for lubrication etc.
- Much smaller footprint - about the size of a shoe box
- Fewer moving parts
- Very low emissions / high efficiency

 

[ct-fiskerbuzz]

Has anyone else ever thought about why Fisker wouldn't just pour more dollars into partnering or engineering itself a dedicated range extender that is more efficient than the loud, noisy and relatively complex Ecotec 4-cyl?

Looks like there are tons of companies out there, each with their own promising tech. One that I came across which looked cool is Bladon Jets (which showcased its tech on the Jag CX-75 concept). Check it out:

http://www.bladonjets.com/applications/automotive/

Some cool features:

- Weighs 95% LESS than conventional piston engine/range extender
- Uses NO OIL for lubrication etc.
- Much smaller footprint - about the size of a shoe box
- Fewer moving parts
- Very low emissions / high efficiency

The Bladon turbine does not actually exist yet.

The Capstone C30 and C65 do (exist). They are not that small (more like a beer keg) but otherwise do what Bladon claim they will eventually do. The C30 puts out 30 kW (about 40 horsepower) and the C65 puts out 65 kW (about 87 hp).

The downside is that they cost $1000/kW (hence $30k and $65k) and run similar efficiencies to ICEs. You get the same efficiency in an ICE for about $5/kW. The ICE does of course require frequent servicing, oil changes, etc., that the turbine does not, but for the GIGANTIC price difference, the fact that you have to do a major maintenance every few hundred hours of operation is no big deal, as
"a few hundred hours of operation" is months of real-time and thousands of miles of travel. Sure, the turbine will go 200,000 miles of travel before needing any maintenance ... but that means you pay for every oil change and one engine rebuild "up front".

 

[SoCalGuy]

The Bladon turbine does not actually exist yet.

The Capstone C30 and C65 do (exist). They are not that small (more like a beer keg) but otherwise do what Bladon claim they will eventually do. The C30 puts out 30 kW (about 40 horsepower) and the C65 puts out 65 kW (about 87 hp).

The downside is that they cost $1000/kW (hence $30k and $65k) and run similar efficiencies to ICEs. You get the same efficiency in an ICE for about $5/kW. The ICE does of course require frequent servicing, oil changes, etc., that the turbine does not, but for the GIGANTIC price difference, the fact that you have to do a major maintenance every few hundred hours of operation is no big deal, as
"a few hundred hours of operation" is months of real-time and thousands of miles of travel. Sure, the turbine will go 200,000 miles of travel before needing any maintenance ... but that means you pay for every oil change and one engine rebuild "up front".

I thought the Bladon turbine was undergoing testing for commercialization - is that not the case?

Also, any promising tech/companies out there with compelling range extender tech? The way I calculate it, the Karma's EVer drivetrain is about 37% efficient at converting stored chemical energy in gas into mechanical energy. Let me know if you agree with this math:

20.1 kwh for 32 miles (EPA) = 1.6 miles per kwh
20 mpg (range extend mode) / 1.6 miles = 12.5 kwh used per gallon
1 gallon has 33.4 kwh, so at 20 mpg, that gives us an efficiency of 37% (12.5 kwh / 33.4 kwh)

That's pretty good for an ICE, but surely there has to be a better (simpler) way to convert more of that chemical energy into usable mechanical energy. ICEs were designed to drive wheels, not generators. They can operate at variable RPMs, again, to drive wheels. Even changing the paradigm of how we think about range extenders might also aid in our quest for optimal efficiency. For example, we frequently think of range extenders as needing to be able to generate enough power to move the car when the battery konks out. Why? Why not have a lower power (more efficient, smaller) range extender that turns on at some specific threshold and can be used to recharge the battery (e.g. maybe when you're parked at a mall, it can just generate, say, 50hp of power to recharge the battery). You could use it as effectively a portable 240V charger that you can flip on when needed.

 

[ct-fiskerbuzz]

I thought the Bladon turbine was undergoing testing for commercialization - is that not the case?

It's possible that they're further along than I had heard. But, obviously, I had not heard that. :angel:

I know Capstone are also looking into "scaling down the quality" (as it were) to scale down the price, too. If they can make a profit selling an "automotive grade C30" for $3k instead of $30k, that would be great. There's a long way to go to get there though. (For that matter, there's a long way to "profit" on the C1000s for $1M. It's in sight now, it just keeps receding a bit every quarter. )

Chris

 

[Wimbledon]

The Lotus Engineering range extender should be of interest:

http://lotusenthusiast.net/2009/10/series-hybrids-and-the-lotus-range-extender.html

http://ev.sae.org/article/9785/

Jaguar tested the Lotus unit in a prototype EREV Jaguar XJ sedan:

http://www.greenmotor.co.uk/2010/11/on-road-in-jaguars-limo-green.html