The BMW 525 pumps are still dating a bit ...
These are the same pumps that were mounted on the first PSA electric vehicles ...
They held just 20.000 km (the time that the brooms wear out) and made a lot of noise (again brooms).
Users of AX / 106 and electric Saxo have replaced them with brushless models (originally mounted on electric Berlingo / Partner) that last at least 60.000km and make no noise.
Some have even replaced them with industrial pumps used to cool computers ...
Well designed, electric pumps are much more reliable and less cumbersome because they do not require a drive belt.
Let's be clear: all the accessory parts of an automobile win to be electrified despite the multiplication of electric motors.
The result is a gain on all the tables;
Energy consumption, gain in weight, gain in size, gain in ease of integration, and, if one takes the trouble, gain in reliability.
List of organs already electrified and which were mechanically trained formerly; Cooling fan, fuel pump, power steering (electro-hydraulic then "full" electric), injectors, headlight height adjustment, intake air compressors, idle speed regulator, ...
List of organs that are beginning to be electrified and will be generalized ; water pump, air conditioning, clutch, shift control, traction motor for hybrid operation, brake system ...
Limitation 70 km / h on the device
citro wrote:Users of AX / 106 and electric Saxo have replaced them with brushless models (originally mounted on electric Berlingo / Partner) that last at least 60.000km and make no noise.
Well designed, electric pumps are much more reliable and less cumbersome because they do not require a drive belt.
..
A mechanical engine cooling water pump lasts much longer than 60 000km ... Today even with a design that seems to be in the order of the low joust of game (turbine plastoc) they are often driven by the belt of distribution and hold the kmtrage of this one ...
The cooling pumps that you quote are accessories pumps (dual zone heating ...) and on electric cars solicited with ridiculous flow ... The electric power to pulse the LDR of a heat engine is quite different. ..The pump will weigh in the 5kgs ... You can see the weight of your 106 DA pump compared to that caused by a belt ... Multiplies ca by the number of pumps needed (air conditioning, braking assistance, hydraulic, cooling, ...) it will take the PL license to drive a car equipped in this way ...
0 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
Despite a poor alternator output, the gain is real, weight, space and fuel economy generated.Forhorse wrote:If the electric pump is not necessary, it is probably that the final gain is low or nonexistent.
... Wanting to do the same thing with an electric motor and electronic devices will only bring a useless complication of the trick.
Alternator technologies that have not evolved since 40 years should finally change for the same reasons ...
But the manufacturers are braking 2 feet to allow us to benefit from technological progress and continue to "amortize" existing industrial tools. In this area, the future will be an Alternator-starter which, for a smaller weight and space requirement than these 2 components, will offer substantial gains in reliability, silence and EFFICIENCY.
There will be no complication but on the contrary simplification in the choice of the implementation of the pump that will no longer need to have a drive shaft parallel to the crankshaft.
The engine temperature sensors are already in place, we can possibly remove belt rollers, and we will also remove the calorstat. The rest will only be computer programming.
You're just resistant to progress and paradigm shift ... Like the financiers who run the Automotive Industry ...
0 x
Again, you take for reference an organ designed to go faster there is more than 20 years with a technology of years 60 ... (brush motor)Macro wrote:... The electric power to pulsate the LDR of a heat engine is quite different ... The pump will weigh in the 5kgs ... You can see the weight of your 106 DA pump compared to that caused by a belt...
A pump body weighs less than one kg and as much for a modern drive motor.
Today, a 5 kg engine develops 15 kW ...
With the race for weight committed in the automotive industry (finally), we will not deprive ourselves.
0 x
citro wrote:Again, you take for reference an organ designed to go faster there is more than 20 years with a technology of years 60 ... (brush motor)Macro wrote:... The electric power to pulsate the LDR of a heat engine is quite different ... The pump will weigh in the 5kgs ... You can see the weight of your 106 DA pump compared to that caused by a belt...
A pump body weighs less than one kg and as much for a modern drive motor.
Today, a 5 kg engine develops 15 kW ...
With the race for weight committed in the automotive industry (finally), we will not deprive ourselves.
Yes modern engines are less heavy ....
I have a rotating machine specialist in my telephone directory on my desk ... In industrial engine it touches a bit its ball ... And prefers by far we repackage our good old CEN engines that sell us the current production ... At least he knows he can give us a guarantee on his taff because he has his slap to change industrial engines (sometimes 10tonnes) after a few weeks of use sometimes while the one he replaced had sometimes XNUMWithout service ...
0 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
Speed on device
citro wrote:I had read your remark, but I do not agree with you ...
It's not a constant loss, it's a proportional loss ...
Hello, citro ...
I apologize for coming back, but I guarantee you that friction losses in an engine consist of losses of static friction (which do not depend on the speed), AND dynamic friction losses (of which only a part depends on speed). So these losses that do not depend on the speed are present all the time, they present a permanent braking of the vehicle. Hence their effect of RELATIVELY important energy losses at low speed!
See the following link (figure 8.3): https://cours.etsmtl.ca/ctn258/notes/chapitre_8.pdf
Other very important losses, the engine in operation at idle, stationary car, consumes fuel just to keep moving and compensate for all friction and temperature losses (for example 2 liters per hour), it is therefore a value of minimum lost energy that we will always have, whether the car is moving forward or not! This consumption "heel" (mini) will be predominant at low speed. Below a certain vehicle speed, more energy will be consumed to keep the engine running than energy to move the vehicle forward. This is why there is a speed limit below which we consume more per hundred kilometers. If after this demonstration Citro is not convinced, I stop, we are no longer on the level of science but of religion! ...
We can of course try to isolate the engine, improve the water pump etc ... But we will always have constant losses plus variable losses, and what I say will still be valid.
Another remark, on computers that gives an indication of the conso instant, it is not (usually) a measure of fuel flow, but a simulation of flow from the air flow, so approximate. ..
friendly.
0 x
I totally agree that there is a "base" amount of energy to be consumed to keep an engine running, what you call "the heel".
But I don't see why "the thickness of this heel" would increase when you slow down ...
The more we accelerate, the more consumption increases, and the more we slow down the more this "heel consumption" becomes predominant, but I see no reason for it to increase more ...
Except if it is done on purpose, for example by comparing the consumption at 30kmh in first gear at 4000 rpm with consumption at 40kmh at 4th speed at 1000 rpm ...
But if we compare what is comparable, ie the consumption at a lower speed at a lower engine speed, the consumption drops ...
So yes, except the bad design of the vehicles or their bad use, I stay on my position, the more we go slowly and the more the consumption decreases, and not the opposite ...
It's not "religious", it's mathematical ...
If a vehicle consumes 2 liters per hour in slow motion, I do not see how he could consume less while driving ...
But I don't see why "the thickness of this heel" would increase when you slow down ...
The more we accelerate, the more consumption increases, and the more we slow down the more this "heel consumption" becomes predominant, but I see no reason for it to increase more ...
Except if it is done on purpose, for example by comparing the consumption at 30kmh in first gear at 4000 rpm with consumption at 40kmh at 4th speed at 1000 rpm ...
But if we compare what is comparable, ie the consumption at a lower speed at a lower engine speed, the consumption drops ...
So yes, except the bad design of the vehicles or their bad use, I stay on my position, the more we go slowly and the more the consumption decreases, and not the opposite ...
It's not "religious", it's mathematical ...
If a vehicle consumes 2 liters per hour in slow motion, I do not see how he could consume less while driving ...
0 x
Absolutely: consumption in liters per hour decreases with speed, to a "heel".citro wrote:I totally agree that there is a "base" amount of energy to be consumed to keep an engine running, what you call "the heel".
But I don't see why "the thickness of this heel" would increase when you slow down ...
[...]
If a vehicle consumes 2 liters per hour in slow motion, I do not see how he could consume less while driving ...
But the number of hours to go from point A to point B increases when the speed decreases, and the product of both (the consumption in liter / km traveled which is the only representative) increases ...
0 x
Travel times evolve very little with speed because the average speed is ultimately always the same (especially with the number of roundabouts they increase without stopping)
To go to work, I make 200Km almost all round.
Currently I am experimenting with reducing my speed a bit (max) to see the difference in consumption.
Rather than driving at 90km / h (meter) with an engine at 2750tr / mn, I try to drive at 80km / h with an 2300tr / mn engine
This reduction of 10km / h of top speed, on a 200km trip mainly extra-urban (just a small town to cross) makes me lose only between 10 and 15mn, ie not much (a busy road) with some trucks actually losing as much)
On a journey that takes 3 hours, I do not think that these extra 10mn (5% more time) induce a significant overconsumption (disregarding what speed reduction brings).
I do not yet have the result on consumption, I would know that at the next full.
Currently I was running between 5.2l and 5.6l / 100km
From what I saw this reduction of 10km / h to the beneficial air. In my opinion, the biggest gain comes from the fact that to drive at 80km / h, it is more necessary to double the trucks, in general we do not even double anyone (but what are we doing shit the others!
)
To go to work, I make 200Km almost all round.
Currently I am experimenting with reducing my speed a bit (max) to see the difference in consumption.
Rather than driving at 90km / h (meter) with an engine at 2750tr / mn, I try to drive at 80km / h with an 2300tr / mn engine
This reduction of 10km / h of top speed, on a 200km trip mainly extra-urban (just a small town to cross) makes me lose only between 10 and 15mn, ie not much (a busy road) with some trucks actually losing as much)
On a journey that takes 3 hours, I do not think that these extra 10mn (5% more time) induce a significant overconsumption (disregarding what speed reduction brings).
I do not yet have the result on consumption, I would know that at the next full.
Currently I was running between 5.2l and 5.6l / 100km
From what I saw this reduction of 10km / h to the beneficial air. In my opinion, the biggest gain comes from the fact that to drive at 80km / h, it is more necessary to double the trucks, in general we do not even double anyone (but what are we doing shit the others!
)
0 x
Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : gegyx and 185 guests