|
MTT still sells their turbine bike http://marineturbine.com/motorcycles/ Jaghoor had that one concept car where the turbines ran generators, but if it ever comes out it's just gonna have a v8 or some poo poo.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
um excuse me posted:Is there no application where a turbine would be useful for a road vehicle? A truck is the closest thing I can think of. Needs lots of torque, spends most of its time at one speed. Even if you could optimize a turbine for a super narrow powerband and run an electric drive train, you could do the same with better results using a similarly optimized diesel engine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Uh, Bonneville? Sort of? But those are (more or less) just jets, even if they're converting it to the wheels instead of pushing air. Using a turbine to power a hybrid system (a la KERS) is the idea. Like the BMW i5 with a turbine as its gas portion? That sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:21
|
|
ME
|
Collateral Damage posted:you could do the same with better results using a similarly optimized diesel engine. dullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Even if you could optimize a turbine for a super narrow powerband and run an electric drive train, you could do the same with better results using a similarly optimized diesel engine. This is more along the track. Just being theoretical, you could basically only ever run the turbine at one speed, because it could always only power a generator. But as said, then you've got EcoBoost and diesel, so even if the turbine could be made more efficient, it would cost too much. But there are markets- supercars and racing- where the cost factor might be irrelevant. So does that mean the turbine is just 100% beaten at this point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
sidewalk gum posted:dullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll  , but unfortunately there really isn't anything you can do with one in a road vehicle operating within normal speed limits that you can't do better with a regular ICE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
What you are asking is really why no one has made a serial hybrid, and the answer is that serial hybrids are dumb and pointless for the most part. A turbine can only really be used in a serial hybrid so it would be doubly pointless. Although Nissan actually has some kind of serial hybrid in the wings, I don't believe they claim that is was any more efficient than other hybrids, merely that for their particular circumstance it might be a slightly more cost effective solution. It's still powered by a piston engine obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:So does that mean the turbine is just 100% beaten at this point? You can get much more peak power out of a turbine than you could ever hope to get out of an ICE (not counting building-sized ship diesels), it's just that apart from setting land speed records, you have no use for that kind of power in a land vehicle. e: The one advantage a turbine has is that you can run it on basically anything that's combustible enough, but that's not a real problem for most people. Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Is there no application where a turbine would be useful for a road vehicle? A truck is the closest thing I can think of. Needs lots of torque, spends most of its time at one speed. You weren't kidding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RqRwuvq2FU 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Dirt 3 Complete bundle including DLC is free until tomorrow-ish: https://www.humblebundle.com/store/dirt-3-complete-edition-free-game
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:For consumer cars sure, it would be a long ways out and probably impossible. But we haven't even had a crazy supercar maker attempt one, that I know of. My only point about the tiny ecoboost motor is just that I think bits like that restored confidence in IC as a concept, so that there's less push to try alternatives. Jaguar C-X75    edit: although they then revised it to use a petrol engine for the production version, but then scrapped production. So I'm not sure if it counts or not. It's fuckin' awesome though Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:I'm kind of wondering why there hasn't been a revolution in gas turbine hybrids. Although I'd guess it's because things like the EcoBoost 1-Liter are pushing what we can do with tiny cheap ICs and the hybrid systems are already too expensive. But matching a gas turbine to a hybrid seems really badass. I've never been able to confirm the rumor but allegedly the turbine that was to go in the Patriot LMP car a few years back killed a pair of engineers when it catastrophically failed on a test bench.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I've never been able to confirm the rumor but allegedly the turbine that was to go in the Patriot LMP car a few years back killed a pair of engineers when it catastrophically failed on a test bench. Quick Google says the flywheel in the recovery system had that problem, maybe crossing two stories?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Don't forget that combustion turbines have a more than a few inherent flaws. Their power output is dependent on ambient temperature. Also, as others have eluded to, they are at peak efficiency at max power. They are incredibly inefficient at low power outputs. Freight locomotives were made with CTs instead of Diesel engines for a little while, but they fell out of favor. If a locomotive can't make the turbine hybrid work, I don't really see any hope for it to work on road going vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine-electric_locomotive I do like the note how if stopped under an overpass, it could melt asphalt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Same in shipping. Gas turbines are small and powerful, but only the Navy wants to deal with the fuel costs and the maintenance, not to mention dealing with a reduction gear that does 40000:1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Quick Google says the flywheel in the recovery system had that problem, maybe crossing two stories? Yeah, I think that was sleep deprivation and brain fade. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Turbines are only really good when it must burn almost anything and must be super-lightweight. See: helicopters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Jaguar C-X75 Goddamn it, this is the future I want to live in. Not one where the Cubbies are champs and the Annoying Orange is in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Goddamn it, this is the future I want to live in. Not one where the Cubbies are champs and the Annoying Orange is in the White House. You speak of the reality where Nixon flew home from the White House in shame aboard a VB-70A, and where Chrysler cornered the market on consumer turbine-cars and spent the late seventies through early eighties driving Toyota out of business with superior efficiency and engineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:You speak of the reality where Nixon flew home from the White House in shame aboard a VB-70A, and where Chrysler cornered the market on consumer turbine-cars and spent the late seventies through early eighties driving Toyota out of business with superior efficiency and engineering. Hang on I thought that was the reality where Dr. Manhattan made electric cars and dirigibles cheap and effective for everyone in the late 70s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
I'm going to keep rolling the dice until the whole 1776 thing went the right way. Or at least make 1812-1815 go better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Yuuup. We all wish turbines had a use case because they're https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJZbef8eYO8 Ah, the memories. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:So does that mean the turbine is just 100% beaten at this point? 0-60 in a blistering 20 seconds
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Wrar posted:Turbines are only really good when it must burn almost anything and must be super-lightweight. See: helicopters. Or tanks when you don't know what fuels you'll have behind enemy lines
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
which isnt really an advantage when a diesel can also burn pretty much any oil from thinned out sump oil to peanut or coconut oil. The diesel doesnt also cook any troops hiding from enemy fire behind your tank with its exhaust either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Abrams also suffer from poor fuel economy, even by tank standards. They're great if you're operating within a hundred miles of your home base or extensive supply lines, but their poor economy resulted in substantial delays during Desert Storm due to needing to be frequently refueled and therefore having their speed limited by their slowest support vehicles - fuel trucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Their economy is so terrible that they've outfitted 11 of them with electric motors and turbine generators to test electric range. IIRC 3 of them were fielded?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Abrams also suffer from poor fuel economy, even by tank standards. They're great if you're operating within a hundred miles of your home base or extensive supply lines, but their poor economy resulted in substantial delays during Desert Storm due to needing to be frequently refueled and therefore having their speed limited by their slowest support vehicles - fuel trucks.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
USMC.jpg if there ever loving was one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Their economy is so terrible that they've outfitted 11 of them with electric motors and turbine generators to test electric range. IIRC 3 of them were fielded? Honestly, I don't know why more heavy vehicles do this. It's a very proven means of movement with trains (since the 1920s), and super-heavy (read: mining) equipment runs off electric or diesel-electric power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
When it comes to cargo vehicles, it's because the drive train is heavier than a traditional one and every kilo of dry weight is one kilo less cargo you can carry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
GPM is the manly fuel economy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Probably the same reason the USPS still uses those shitheap LLVs, easier to deal with terrible economy than a more complicated (and expensive) machine. Although with the tanks you lose out on both...
redgubbinz fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Now I want to see fuel trucks replaced by something running a couple of large turbine generators to recharge tanks. On the move. Like a fleet replenishment ship/oiler/collier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
A lot of mining equipment (like the bagger 288, etc) moves so slowly that it is actually connected to the power grid instead of having its own generator onboard. Completely different problem to solve. Electric only works if your expected runtime will fit in a single discharge cycle, really, or if the charge time to discharge time ratio is good enough. Electric powered by a generator only really benefits you if the equipment to convert to electricity and then back is more efficient, lighter, smaller, or cheaper (or some acceptable combination of those) than simply mechanically driving the wheels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
redgubbinz posted:Probably the same reason the USPS still uses those shitheap LLVs, easier to deal with terrible economy than a more complicated (and expensive) machine. Fuckers keep leaking oil in my driveway for the 30 seconds they pull up to drop off my mail. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:GPM is the manly fuel economy. How "manly" is .03030303... GPM?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:God I love the P-47 From a few pages back, but my grandad worked on those. He was a crew chief in the 368 Fighter Group, 397 Fighter Squadron. He received a Bronze Star for 237 missions with no lost planes or pilots. Part of that was because the P-47 was aa big tough bitch, of course. I didn't know about the ridonkulous turbo back there, though! Awesome film, too. iospace posted:I saw one of those at a local car show: I thought I'd seen that car before while I was in California, but looking back to my gallery, it was actually a model in the same vein, parked next to an Isetta:    Throatwarbler posted:What you are asking is really why no one has made a serial hybrid, and the answer is that serial hybrids are dumb and pointless for the most part. A turbine can only really be used in a serial hybrid so it would be doubly pointless. I take it you're not aware that the Chevy Volt is a series hybrid (though obviously not a turbine.) As far as supercars with a turbine, only one I'm aware of is Jay Leno's Ecojet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
I don't think the Volt (at least the first-generation one) is technically a series hybrid. It can run purely on battery-electric, but the gas engine is physically connected to the drivetrain and contributes power to the wheels in some situations. The BMW i3 with the range-extender is a true series hybrid, since the wheels are powered only by the electric motor and the gas engine runs a generator to recharge the battery pack. BMW calls it an EREV or something but I don't think there's a functional difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
 Man that new photoscan app is the tits. Picture of my old mk2 Escort that I bought and sold for $700. If I still had it, in the condition it was in I'd probably get around 20k now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 09:21
|
|