Scottish company accidently doubles vehicles' MPG with hydraulic hybrid transmission

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/dynamic-displacement-technology.php

Scottish Company Claims Technology Can Double Vehicles' MPG
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 06. 5.08

If electric vehicles aren't your thing, then you may be pleased to hear that at least one company is working on giving that tried and true internal combustion engine a major boost. Artemis, an Edinburgh, Scotland-based company, has developed a hydraulic hybrid transmission that could potentially double the mileage of most vehicles -- by accident, as it happens. The firm's original goal had been to simply reduce CO2 emissions on the highway by 30% (a goal it also achieved).

The results were confirmed independently by the U.K. Energy Saving Trust, which found that Artemis' prototype BMW 530i hydraulic series hybrid, equipped with the new transmission, achieved double the MPG in city tests over its manual alternative (you can see a video of the test on Artemis' website). Its breakthrough hybrid powertrain design is based on its proprietary Digital Displacement (DD) technology, which it has spent the last 15 years working on.

Niall Caldwell, one of Artemis' senior engineers, claims its potential advantages over EVs would be three-fold: Vehicles equipped with the technology would perform better in stop and go environments (by storing energy at a faster rate) -- in cities, for example; the transmission would be more durable, lighter and (most importantly) cheaper; and a greater number of vehicles would see significant fuel savings.

Once it gets mass-produced, Caldwell predicts that vehicles equipped with the DD technology would become even cheaper than standard hybrids. The inevitable downside: We may not see this technology in production for a while -- perhaps up to 10 years. If you're curious (and are into the nitty-gritty mechanics), Artemis' website provides some helpful specs and descriptions of its DD technology. Oh, and don't forget to check out Planet Green for shows like Mean Green Machines and others that'll be sure to feature similar breakthrough technologies (shameless plug, I know).

Via ::Cleantech Group: Scottish company claims hybrid breakthrough (news website)

It seems like there would be great demand for this tech, if they could roll it in in the next few years. But the article says that it could take 10 years to production. By then, what will we have for all electric vehicles?

Sometime the Switch can take even longer. In the early 1970s GM decided its cars were to big (and they were) and decided to downsize them. The problem was how to do so? If you made them to small, existing engines and transmission would not fit into them. Thus GM had to do a two step reduction in size, first make its cars smaller, then make its engines smaller then and only then make its cars even smaller. The land yachts of the late 1960s and early 1970s had to be propelled by a large V8, anything smaller would NOT give people the performance they had become use to. On the other hand most of the engine plants GM had made V-8s, and you needed a large car just to fit one in. The Oil crisis of the 1970s made things even worse, but GM (and Ford and Chrysler) had the same problem. limited ability to produce four and Six cylinder engines, but a lot of ability to produce V-8s. The big V-8s died quickly in the early 1970s, but 350 cubic inch V-8s stayed in production, for it alone could move the Land Yachts of the time period. GM, Ford and Chrysler all started to convert their V-8 engine plants to making Fours and V-6s but that took time, and all three still had to sell cars. Thus all through the 1970s you saw large cars get smaller, able to use a V-6 instead of needing a V-8, but the V-8 still being offered for that is what the big three could produce.

GM wa real bad, for its reduced its large size cars first. In fact, for about four years its GM's Full size cars were SHORTER then its mid-size cars (Through by interior room size, the large cars had more room, given improve design). Then for about Four years its Mid Size cars were smaller then its compact (The GM Compact of the 1970s was the Chevrolet Nova, design in the 1960s to be able to fit in a large V-8 and to large to be powered by a Four, it had to have at least a six, and if you had an automatic, and most were, you had to get a V-8 just to propel the Nova down the street).

My point was the cars had to get smaller first, then the engine, and then the cars. The Nova's replacement, the Citation could be propelled down the street with a four as well as a V-6, something the Nova could never do (i.e. a four in a 1970s era Nova would have had a hard time getting to the 55 mph speed limit let alone exceed it). The same with this new engine, the vehicle being propelled by it must be designed around it. The best way would be to design both at the same time, but that means designing not only the car but the engine at the same time AND designing the factories where both will be built. In the Case of GM's downsizing of the 1970s, it took them almost 15 years to finish the downsizing (Ford and Chrysler did NOT do a planned downsize like GM did, they just stop makings cars that were NOT selling, but the results were about the same).

GM started to planning its downsize of its cars about 1970 as gasoline jumped from 25 cents a gallon to 35 cents a gallon and did not finish till Reagan was in Office and both the North Slope of Alaska and the North Sea oil fields were brought in on line (Which caused the Oil glut of the 1980s that lead to the reduced gasoline prices of the 1980s and 1990s). Thus the entire reduction Plan of Gm took the entire period of the oil crisis of the 1970s.

Now the Japanese were quicker, but only because they took what they were making in Japan for Japan and the rest of the World and shipped it to the US. In the 1990s, do to the demand for SUVs. the Japanese manufactures decided to expand their US markets by making they cars larger and larger (and getting into the SUV market). The Prius is a "Mid-size" car of today (It would be a compact in the 1970s but it is a Mid-size Car today, again this is from exterior size, in interior size the Prius meets the Mid-size definition used by the EPA). In the 1970s no Japanese Manufacturer shipped to the US what we would call a Mid-size or Large sedan, but things have changed since the 1970s. The Japanese are as bad as the US Big Three in having their factories tied up to cars no one wants any more. Given that Japan still are making sub-compact cars for Japan and the rest of the World, all the Japanese car makers have to do is switch (and given the drop in world wide sales, not hard to do). The Japanese may have to eat losses on they larger cars (and the SUVs, just like the Big three in the US will have to), but my point is NOT the problems of Us and Japanese Car makers, but the time it takes to get a new car, new Transmission and New engine from the drawing board to the Factory floor and that can take 10-15 years.

Now some of the 10-15 years has been reduced by the widespread adoption of CAD (Computer Aides Design) programs, the days of having to make a version out of wood or clay is long gone, but we are taking about a new Engine and new Transmission for trucks for local deliveries only (i.e. NOT for use going cross country as many tractor-trailers do today). Getting people like UPS, the US Postal Service, and other local delivers to buy into these new transmission/engines will also take some time. Such end-users will prefer to experiment with them before going over to them completely. They do NOT want to be stuck with a Truck their can not use (Look at a UPS truck, most were purchased within the last five years, but they haven't changed in decades, right down to the engines and manual transmissions they all use). The main reason for this is the Trucks use all the same wheels, tires, fluids, seats interiors, engines, transmissions so when repairs are needed the parts are on hand (or quick to get). Thus any truck is out of service the minimum of time (The USPS does the same thing as do most other large users of trucks). This adds to the delay as you prepare such large users for the transition, but that again goes into that 10-15 year period.

My point is 10-15 years is about right for any transition on large purchase items like trucks. These are NOT computers, these trucks cost about 10 times what a new computer (and I am comparing a stripped down truck with a Computer with the newest and latest and most complete hardware and software you can get today). Given their cost, the replacement of these trucks will be carefully considered, I remember working for UPS in collage as a clerk (non-union) and reading about UPS lobbying Congress to except it from any fuel restriction in the 1970s if Congress passed some sort of gasoline/fuel rationing. UPS pointed out if the rationing plan that was bring kicked around would force it to convert to Gasoline trucks and thus UPS would use more oil then if it was permitted to continue to get all the diesel it had been using (This became a non-issue with the oil glut of the 1980s, but discussed in the late 1970s). UPS had to look at its truck usage 5-10 years in the future and in the late 1970s that meant looking at the possibility of oil rationing.

Just some of the reasons it will take 10-15 years for this engine/transmission to get into production. Design of the truck the engine/transmission and the factories they will be made in PLUS getting customers use to the idea of using a truck with such an engine/transmission will take 10-15 years.

But the maker avoids the term "Continuous Variable Transmission or CVT for short. This probably is do to CVT's known problems with torque (i.e. great for stop and go traffic, but if you need to pull out in a hurry into traffic, don't even try). The CVT seems to be where the big savings in fuel economy is, but the engine is also an engine and a transmission combined into one. While the big fuel saving is in the use of a CVT there appears to be additional savings in the combination of engine and the CVT AND in shutting down parts of the engine that are NOT needed. In this later regard this is much like GM did in the 1970s or 1980s. In the Case of GM it was shutting down a V-8 sometime down to a 2 cylinders (The engine was a complete debacle, GM was forced to replaced all of them within a few years of their introduction).

This engine does NOT do a compete shut down of cylinders like GM's debacle, it sounds more like a partial shit down controlled by electronics (and this is more to reduce or increase power to the CVT part of the combine engine/Transmission then any attempt to completely shit down parts of the engine).

Thus what I can see this is a combination of improved control over the firing of the cylinders combined with a Continuous Variable Transmission (CVT). I suspect it will have the same problem as the all of the other CVTs, no torque (i.e. no ability to pull out in a hurry or from a loose surface (i.e. don't even think of pulling out of the Mud if you have a continuous transmission). In urban environment of trucking not much of a problem for most such trucks are slow to begin with and only meant to take things from the warehouse to where something is wanted. The engine will be a good improvement, but no more than all the other CVTs that are about to hit the market do to CVTs known better fuel economy even over manual transmissions.

The maker's technical page (i tis not much but gives a little information:
http://www.artemisip.com/technology.htm

Continuous transmission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

List of Vehicles using CVTs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobiles_with_continuously_variable_transmissions

Where is the oil and coal for manufacturing these pieces of shit going to come from in ten years?

Any idea?

Remember peak oil is when 1/2 of the world wide oil is gone, NOT when it is all gone. Thus in ten years will will still have access to oil. Approximately the same about of oil we had in 1995 (Ten years before peak of 2005, if that is when peak occurred). Thus we will have access to oil, The real question is at what price. If the price is a lot higher then it is now, and I expect that to be the case, people using oil will look to use it in the most efficient way, and that may be in a truck with this type of engine/transmission design to do no faster then 30 mph for maximum fuel savings.

In ten years most people may be banned from putting oil into their private vehicles (Rationing to keep price down) or may only forbidden from putting the oil into whatever vehicle the state calls inefficient (All to keep the price of oil down) but other users may be permitted to use them, such as delivery trucks.

People get so upset about Peak Oil, they forget it is only the peak, we then go into a rough period of transition. The transition will be long (140 years) and rough, but as we confer to a post-oil society, oil will still be used while it is still available, but in ways that reflects its greater value over time. Oil may be reserved to the building of Nuclear plants, if society finds that is the best use of the remaining oil reserves and in such situation such trucks would be the most efficient way to use that oil in getting the parts to the Nuclear plant site (It would be quicker then horse drawn wagon).