Offboard hybridization

On Sep 14, 2:06*am, jim beam > wrote:
>
> don't get me wrong - i have a leaf reared truck. *i kind of like it.
> and i like that it handles static loads easily. *but its dynamic load
> handling is just abysmal relative to any of the above. *absolutely abysmal.
>
> and don't get me started on ground clearance.
>
You lowered it? I somehow doubt it has less than 4" on my A4.

On Sep 13, 5:47*pm, weelliott > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2:58*am, AD > wrote:
>
>
>
> > A thought occurred to me last night: why do you need to bother with
> > lugging a huge battery onboard
> > when you could just flush the battery and the motor(s) into the floor
> > of a purpose built trailers.
>
> > This solves the the hard winter starts problem and awd (lack of it)
> > problem for BRZ in winter
> > by providing 4x6 layout and allows for a 6x6 setup for the rest of the
> > subaru lineup. Just hitch up the trailer,
> > plug the trailer cable and (hopefully) go. But then, there is an issue
> > of folks
> > insisting on running all season tires on the trailer year round.
>
> > With a two wheel trailer you could have a 6x8 and 8x8 setups: the heft
> > of the battery should reliably
> > anchor the trailer to the ground allowing for a perfect 50:50 weight
> > spit between the wheels.
>
> > Me thinks having a horse trailer would work even better since there is
> > 600 kilo worth of meat
> > helping the wheels to cut through the snow (multiple that by 2 for a
> > double, but
> > then there is an issue of a unperfect weight distribution side to
> > side)
>
> There are issues with having a trailer provide driving force. It plays
> with the handling balance of the car if you start to get to meaningful
> levels of thrust.
>
> Toyota actually had an EV RAV-4 for fleet use about a decade ago. It
> had a generator trailer that worked pretty well, but it wasn't a
> pusher. It was just a generator with cables that ran to the RAV-4.
>
> Trailers are not zero load as far as rolling resistance, aero load, or
> weight.
>
> I don't think a subaru should ever be hooked up to a horse trailer.
> Even if it had its own power. The car just has too little weight and
> wheelbase to handle a trailer with that much mass. a Trailer capacble
> of handing 600 kilos of horse, with electric motors and batteries
> likely weighs nearly 2000 kilos completely loaded. You're not going to
> catch me driving a car on 16 inch wheels with 205 or 225 series tires
> sheparding along a trailer that weighs as much as, or more than the

With the two axles the extra load on the rear of the car should be
minimal
if at all present. No?
If so then the (rear) tire load handling capacity should be
irrelevant.

On Sep 13, 11:36*am, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/13/2011 07:47 AM, weelliott wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 2:58 am, > *wrote:
> >> A thought occurred to me last night: why do you need to bother with
> >> lugging a huge battery onboard
> >> when you could just flush the battery and the motor(s) into the floor
> >> of a purpose built trailers.
>
> >> This solves the the hard winter starts problem and awd (lack of it)
> >> problem for BRZ in winter
> >> by providing 4x6 layout and allows for a 6x6 setup for the rest of the
> >> subaru lineup. Just hitch up the trailer,
> >> plug the trailer cable and (hopefully) go. But then, there is an issue
> >> of folks
> >> insisting on running all season tires on the trailer year round.
>
> >> With a two wheel trailer you could have a 6x8 and 8x8 setups: the heft
> >> of the battery should reliably
> >> anchor the trailer to the ground allowing for a perfect 50:50 weight
> >> spit between the wheels.
>
> >> Me thinks having a horse trailer would work even better since there is
> >> 600 kilo worth of meat
> >> helping the wheels to cut through the snow (multiple that by 2 for a
> >> double, but
> >> then there is an issue of a unperfect weight distribution side to
> >> side)
>
> > There are issues with having a trailer provide driving force. It plays
> > with the handling balance of the car if you start to get to meaningful
> > levels of thrust.
>
> > Toyota actually had an EV RAV-4 for fleet use about a decade ago. It
> > had a generator trailer that worked pretty well, but it wasn't a
> > pusher. It was just a generator with cables that ran to the RAV-4.
>
> > Trailers are not zero load as far as rolling resistance, aero load, or
> > weight.
>
> > I don't think a subaru should ever be hooked up to a horse trailer.
> > Even if it had its own power. The car just has too little weight and
> > wheelbase to handle a trailer with that much mass.
>
> you've been brainwashed.
>
> <http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/02/the-great-american-anti-towi...>
>
> <http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/01/whats-wrong-with-this-pictur...>
>
> i have personally towed a [hydraulic braked] twin axle three horse
> trailer, load: one ornery 200lb pig and several full size straw bales,
> with an 1100cc fwd car. *the steepest grade was about 25% and we took in
> 1st gear, but it made it. *and the vehicle handling was better than a
> traditional truck because its independent rear suspension was not
> subject to yaw like leaf springs are*.
>
> sure, a more powerful vehicle would have been nice to have, and
> certainly a good deal faster up hill, but our culturally ingrained fear
> and trepidation about needing 5+ liters of v8 to tow <3000lbs of trailer
> is without foundation, and frankly, after that experience, completely
> ridiculous.
>
> > a Trailer capacble
> > of handing 600 kilos of horse, with electric motors and batteries
> > likely weighs nearly 2000 kilos completely loaded. You're not going to
> > catch me driving a car on 16 inch wheels with 205 or 225 series tires
> > sheparding along a trailer that weighs as much as, or more than the
> > car.
>
> > Bill
>
> * "duallies" are a ridiculous concept. *tires don't improve yaw
> stability, suspension does. *as long as detroit keeps churning out
> trucks with leaf spring rears, we're always going to have towing yaw
> stability problems.
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're right all my engineering professors brainwashed me into
thinking that it's not a good idea to use the wrong tool for the job.
You might have successfully used an 1100 cc car to pull a trailer much
larger than the car itself, but you were confined to using first gear.
The fact that you then go into a discussion fo dynamic handling is
ironic since your system had just barely crossed the line from static
to dynamic.

There are many jobs that can be done with non-ideal tools, but it
either makes it harder or unsafe. I think that using a subaru to tow a
trailer at highway speeds that large is unsafe. Possible to do, but
unsafe.

> > I have no doubt that you were able to tow a big trailer with a small
> > car.. I have done it dozens of times myself.
> > But to say that the handling was better than a truck is absurd beyond
> > belief.
> > Ben
>
> simple leaf spring suspensions yaw - that's one of the fundamental
> weaknesses of that configuration. *multi-link suspension simply doesn't,
> so it makes for a much more stable towing platform. *i call that
> stability "better handling", but you might have a different word for it.

How did that 'un-absurd' what you said?

The only time I ever experienced yaw in all the towing I've done is
when I towed a full size bronco on a 1500 pound trailer with a 1990
S-10... an 8500 pound load with a vehicle designed to tow 1500 pounds
The fact is that the yaw issue you spoke of is non existent when you
tow a within design limits.
Cheers,
Ben

On 9/14/2011 12:01 AM, AD wrote:

> With the two axles the extra load on the rear of the car should be
> minimal
> if at all present. No?
> If so then the (rear) tire load handling capacity should be
> irrelevant.

One thing neglected in many towing capacity discussions is braking
effectiveness and control. Ever had a deer jump in front of you while
towing?

On Sep 15, 6:58*am, thumper > wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 12:01 AM, AD wrote:
>
> > With the two axles the extra load on the rear of the car should be
> > minimal
> > if at all present. No?
> > If so then the (rear) tire load handling capacity should be
> > irrelevant.
>
> One thing neglected in many towing capacity discussions is braking
> effectiveness and control. *Ever had a deer jump in front of you while
> towing?

I'd have to venture a guess a single axle trailer with the front load
bias
would have an edge in that scenario because it will help to add weight
to the
rear axle of the car during brake dive (of the trailer)

On the other hand in emergency braking a single axle trailer say,
loaded with 2000lbs worth
of cargo could easily outstrip the claimed tire load capacity
resulting in
the rear tires blowing up. That's entirely depend on how
overengineered
a given tire is in a given size.

Thumper, did you have a deer jump in front of you while towing and
want to shed some
specifics on the subject?

On Sep 12, 5:56*pm, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 04:28 AM, AD wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 5:04 am, wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 00:25:03 -0700 (PDT), > *wrote:
> >>> On Sep 8, 4:30 pm, 1 Lucky > *wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 8, 1:58 am, > *wrote:
>
> >>>>> A thought occurred to me last night: why do you need to bother with
> >>>>> lugging a huge battery onboard
> >>>>> when you could just flush the battery and the motor(s) into the floor
> >>>>> of a purpose built trailers.
>
> >>>>> This solves the the hard winter starts problem and awd (lack of it)
> >>>>> problem for BRZ in winter
> >>>>> by providing 4x6 layout and allows for a 6x6 setup for the rest of the
> >>>>> subaru lineup. Just hitch up the trailer,
> >>>>> plug the trailer cable and (hopefully) go. But then, there is an issue
> >>>>> of folks
> >>>>> insisting on running all season tires on the trailer year round.
>
> >>>>> With a two wheel trailer you could have a 6x8 and 8x8 setups: the heft
> >>>>> of the battery should reliably
> >>>>> anchor the trailer to the ground allowing for a perfect 50:50 weight
> >>>>> spit between the wheels.
>
> >>>>> Me thinks having a horse trailer would work even better since there is
> >>>>> 600 kilo worth of meat
> >>>>> helping the wheels to cut through the snow (multiple that by 2 for a
> >>>>> double, but
> >>>>> then there is an issue of a unperfect weight distribution side to
> >>>>> side)
>
> >>>> I think Chrysler and others have done related concept vehicles - where
> >>>> different components are hooked together. Like turning your small
> >>>> commuter into a passenger van etc.
>
> >>>> I suspect there are a lot of reasons why we don't see the kind of
> >>>> innovation you're suggesting. Safety regs being one of them. Why try
> >>>> something radically different if it opens you up to risks your
> >>>> competitors aren't taking? In a climate where one or a dozen idiots, a
> >>>> frenzied media, and 'maybe' a coupla sticking accelerator pedals can
> >>>> almost bankrupt Toyota? I mean, we now have to have cars with
> >>>> collision avoidance and back-up cameras. Imagine the average person
> >>>> trying to regularly and SAFELY hook up to and drive with a trailer -
> >>>> particularly one that may have huge amounts of battery energy stored
> >>>> on board. And where do you park this thing when not being used?
> >>>> I bet there are terabytes of cool ideas from automotive engineers that
> >>>> are shelved because cars have to be built to easily and safely be
> >>>> operated by folks that have the mental capacity of a distracted 3rd
> >>>> grader.
>
> >>> Carl, I hate the idea of a suburu hybrid so much that I just could not
> >>> help myself.
>
> >>> In fact I hate it even more than the idea of a subaru diesel.
> >>> For all I care they could've stuck the hybrid powertrain into diesel
> >>> models only:
> >>> so that you could have some alternative means of propulsion when
> >>> that tractor of a car warms up in winter, that, or when the diesel
> >>> solidifies
> >>> and the only way for you to get off the ****ing motorway is by
> >>> electric
> >>> propulsion.
>
> >>> Hybrid powertrain should be mandatory on diesels to mitigate the risk
> >>> of traffic congestion
> >>> they create in below zero F temps by stalling and blocking the
> >>> traffic.
>
> >> Idiots that are too stupid or cheap to add winter fuel conditioner
> >> shouldn't drive diesels. And a pre-heater never hurt either.
>
> > Pre heater would not do you much good if
>
> "would"??? *"if"??? *you're obviously not speaking from experience.
>
> *> the diesel solidifies in
>
> > the tank, diesel pump or the diesel lines going into the engine.
> > But, then, it's more of an issue for canadians.
>
> and yet despite your fud, the canadians, [and russians, and alaskans]
> seem to manage to run diesels throughout the winter. *thus, you're
> either willfully blind to reality, or you're just a troll seeking to
> help keep americans stuck with low-efficiency vehicles while we waste
> our money on foreign oil.
>
>
>
> > Pre heater also adds complexity. You should've seen the guy poking in
> > the MMI menus on A6 to program the thing to start in a few minutes.
>
> as opposed to some guy poking about on the internet trying to find out
> whether canadia shuts down every winter because he thinks they're so
> retarded, they can't figure out what "diesel #1" is?
>

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../11/c2116.html
Is this recent enough for you?

"AD" > wrote in message news:3bf821d8-Pre heater would not
do you much good if the diesel solidifies in
the tank, diesel pump or the diesel lines going into the engine.
But, then, it's more of an issue for canadians.

Pre heater also adds complexity. You should've seen the guy poking in
the MMI menus on A6 to program the thing to start in a few minutes.
*******
True. Well conditioned "winter" diesel shouldnt give much
of a problem anyway, but there are times when winter comes
effectively before the "summer" diesel is off the market.

Diesel additives would give you protection during the changeover period.

On Sep 15, 4:39*pm, "hls" > wrote:
> "AD" > wrote in message news:3bf821d8-Pre heater would not
>
> do you much good if the diesel solidifies in
> the tank, diesel pump or the diesel lines going into the engine.
> But, then, it's more of an issue for canadians.
>
> Pre heater also adds complexity. You should've seen the guy poking in
> the MMI menus on A6 to program the thing to start in a few minutes.
> *******
> True. * Well conditioned "winter" diesel shouldnt give much
> of a problem anyway, but there are times when winter comes
> effectively before the "summer" diesel is off the market.
>
> Diesel additives would give you protection during the changeover period.

And would do no harm to the engine I'm sure.
Around here kerosene and gasoline are common "additives"

And then there are desperate luddittes with boiling water in the
kettles...

On 09/15/2011 07:51 AM, AD wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:39�pm, > wrote:
>> > wrote in message news:3bf821d8-Pre heater would not
>>
>> do you much good if the diesel solidifies in
>> the tank, diesel pump or the diesel lines going into the engine.
>> But, then, it's more of an issue for canadians.
>>
>> Pre heater also adds complexity. You should've seen the guy poking in
>> the MMI menus on A6 to program the thing to start in a few minutes.
>> *******
>> True. � Well conditioned "winter" diesel shouldnt give much
>> of a problem anyway, but there are times when winter comes
>> effectively before the "summer" diesel is off the market.
>>
>> Diesel additives would give you protection during the changeover period.
>
> And would do no harm to the engine I'm sure.
> Around here kerosene and gasoline are common "additives"
>
> And then there are desperate luddittes with boiling water in the
> kettles...

speaking for yourself no doubt.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum