[bwilson4web]

First off, I'm not a hypermiler but I have a few clues about where the technology needs to go and this is my 'short list':

• speed adjusted "N" - when the accelerator is released, allow any speeds below that current value to be energy neutral and any speed increases to have an exponentially increasing drag so at +10% (aka., 7 mph at 70 mph at accelerator off) the vehicle is in "B" mode with maximum regenerative capture.
• multi-phase brake - using variable resistance, at light braking, it smoothly handles both regenerative and "B" mode. At heavier braking or when "B" and regen are saturated, add mechanical brakes.
• standard auto-cruise and obstacle braking - this is both a safety as well as a fuel efficiency technique. It eliminates the threat of H.R. 734, "Bell the Hybrid."
• speed deployed aerodyanmics - at speeds above 45 mph, an air dam, air intake block, wheel front fairings and side skirts should deploy.
• exhaust and engine heat recovery - ammonia absorption cooling
• solar heat capture hood and top - the hood and vehicle top should be two layered using a thermal capture loop to preserve engine heat and battery temperatures in hot weather
• auto window crack - when interior temperatures reach 90F, crack the windows ~1 inch while locking the doors so even a rod or stick can not unlock them. Upon detecting rain fall, roll them back up or if some object is rattling in the opening.
• solar charging dash top - a large area, it should provide about 5-15 watts of trickle charge to keep the vehicle in 'active' low power mode.

The "ECO" button is a start but there are technologies needed to make not only our Prius but all vehicles more fuel efficient and safer.

Bob Wilson

[FastMover]

All good ideas, although the first one may take some "tuning". I would also like to see an "energy constant" mode for the cruise control wherein the system accepted speed changes and maintained a constant FE (derived from manifold pressure, fuel flow and density altitude related to power demand, and with automated leaning, like we do in aircraft) during cruise in low density traffic. On my commute, I do this and can routinely outperform the cruise control at any speed above 45 MPH.

I agree about the venting principle of the "window crack", but a separate venting system might be easier if the air rush noise, cross wind, dust/pollution and precipitation issues are considered. A slotted vent system above the door windows with automated controls could be filterd and ducted to address the noise and also completely eliminate the other issues.

I have always felt that the head on the dash was a wasted resource.

[bwilson4web]

FastMover said:

All good ideas, although the first one may take some "tuning". I would also like to see an "energy constant" mode for the cruise control wherein the system accepted speed changes and maintained a constant FE (derived from manifold pressure, fuel flow and density altitude related to power demand, and with automated leaning, like we do in aircraft) during cruise in low density traffic. On my commute, I do this and can routinely outperform the cruise control at any speed above 45 MPH.

I agree that a constant rate or even maximum fuel low cruise control and have been speculating about:

• maximum mass air flow - this is a good indicator of fuel burn rate and engine power setting.
• target speed - what it will back off to achieve
• maximum overspeed - the maximum speed over the target that is allowed before engaging more aggressive systems. Jurisdiction and/or terrain dependent.

FastMover said:

I agree about the venting principle of the "window crack", but a separate venting system might be easier if the air rush noise, cross wind, dust/pollution and precipitation issues are considered. A slotted vent system above the door windows with automated controls could be filterd and ducted to address the noise and also completely eliminate the other issues.

I have always felt that the head on the dash was a wasted resource.

The biggest problem is hot air rises and the existing vents are low. Only the window crack is as close to peak as we can easily get.

Bob Wilson

[FastMover]

bwilson4web said:

I agree that a constant rate or even maximum fuel low cruise control and have been speculating about:

• maximum mass air flow - this is a good indicator of fuel burn rate and engine power setting.
• target speed - what it will back off to achieve
• maximum overspeed - the maximum speed over the target that is allowed before engaging more aggressive systems. Jurisdiction and/or terrain dependent.

The biggest problem is hot air rises and the existing vents are low. Only the window crack is as close to peak as we can easily get.

Bob Wilson

Maximum mass air flow -- Good, but not good enough. The automotive industry is way behind aviation and rail transport systems when it comes to fuel managmement. Yes, maximum air flow, but also dynamic auto-leaning to 100 degrees or 50 degrees rich of peak (relative to power demand for cooling and compensated for density altitude) when accelerating and 50 degrees lean of peak for cruising or deceleration. Most vehicles now have some kind of altitude compensation for mixture if not, indeed, fuel injected, but they are very primitive systems for the most part. Even for fuel injected engines, the best power mix ratio is not the most fuel efficient mix for cruise or coasting, and a lot of fuel is wasted anytime these regeimes are used other than when in fuel cutoff.

Target speed - what it will back off to achieve -- more correctly, what speed range is acceptable before executing more agressive power demand or coasting measures. Also, if you have the intelligence to do obstacle braking, how much harder to do terrain anticipation and manage power earlier to control speed regime?

The biggest problem is hot air rises and the existing vents are low. -- Agreed. That is why a slot system above the door line is essentual. Actually, it will also improve convective ventilation as well. Intake of cold air low and an exhaust system high. There is not enough of an altitude difference in present designs -- usually with an intake at the base of the windshield and exhausts in the rear pillars. An aerodynamic slot system with intakes over the front doors and exhausts over the rear doors or further back on rear-cab vehicles would be much more efficient. Precip and condensation resulting from the slot intake could be extracted and discharged via the door pillar.