Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jaguar Hybrid Concept C-X75

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jaguar Hybrid Concept C-X75

    Just in time for Jaguar's 75th anniversary they released the C-X75, a hybrid concept that combines electric power and turbines. The car has 780 hp with AWD and is designed for 0-60 in 3 seconds, a quarter mile in 10.3 seconds and a top speed of 205 mph. On batteries alone, it has a range of 68 miles, but in combination with the turbines it has a range of 560 miles. In a bit of gaudiness, the turbines are displayed under the rear window.




  • #2
    I like it. Don't know about the mechanics, but, I like it.

    Comment


    • #3
      another example of the sort of car which will be the performance car of the future. Nice looking one, too.
      "You couldn't find a car you liked in Germany?

      No......I couldn't find a speed limit I liked in America."

      Proud Fan of the IZOD Indycar World Series

      Comment


      • #4
        What do the turbines run on, and how much of it?
        "Only a fool fights in a burning house."-Kang

        "If you listen to fools....The Maaahhhhb Ruuuules....."-Ronnie James Dio

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sea Fury View Post
          What do the turbines run on, and how much of it?
          As the website for the turbine maker points out ( http://www.bladonjets.com/ )

          Since gas turbine engines will run on just about 
any type of fuel, including LPG and bio-fuels, they 
are not dependent on dwindling oil reserves. Unlike hydrogen where distribution is virtually non existent, fuels for gas turbine engines use existing distribution infrastructures.
          The turbine is probably optimized for gasoline, but I suspect in a pinch you could use diesel fuel, or even stop at your local airport and put in Jet Fuel A or even 100LL Av Gas, assuming you can get the fuel hose to fit

          As far as fuel economy, since the turbines drive a generator, they can run in their most fuel efficient range continuously (apparently about 80,000 RPM !!!) so the vehicle is probably as efficient as a gasoline engine that provides the same power output. Mileage may even be better, because again a gasoline engine doesn't usually get to spend a significant period of time in its best fuel range when it is used to drive the vehicle directly.

          Where a hybrid really shines is in stop and go traffic. The vehicle is powered only by the electric motors off the batteries, and the power source for the generator (whether some kind of internal combustion or turbine) only kicks in when the batteries need recharging, allowing the generator driver to run in its most fuel efficient mode.

          Where a hybrid has a problem in beating the mileage of a gasoline engine is when the gasoline engine gets to run in its most efficient mode. My Corvette, in 6th gear, cruising at 65 to 70 mph, gets 28 to 30 mpg. Of course I can knock that down to less than 10 mpg at the track where the engine spends most of its time at wide open throttle ...

          EDIT - I finally found an article that mentions the concept car has a 16 gallon diesel fuel tank.

          http://www.motortrend.com/auto_shows...ept/index.html
          Last edited by BadazzZ06; 10-02-2010, 12:45 PM. Reason: Include diesel info ...

          Comment


          • #6
            It seems to fix a turbine's biggest drawback as a power for automobile, the very slow pickup, while keeping it's biggest advantage which is that turbines look hella cool, by putting them under glass. It looks like somebody at Jag is thinking out of the box. I likey.

            Any word on the actual MPG?
            It's impossible, that's sure. So let's start working.- Phillipe Petit

            Talent borrows, Genius steals. - Pablo Picasso

            Ah, there's nothing more exciting than science. You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention... Science has it all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bombardier R142 View Post
              It seems to fix a turbine's biggest drawback as a power for automobile, the very slow pickup, while keeping it's biggest advantage which is that turbines look hella cool, by putting them under glass. It looks like somebody at Jag is thinking out of the box. I likey.

              Any word on the actual MPG?
              I agree, between how good looking the car is, and an innovative twin-turbine set-up, and finally the performance ... one very HOT car ...

              As far as the MPG issue, AFAIK the EPA is still trying to figure out how to rate hybrids ... especially ones like the Chevy Volt and this new Jaguar, where the fuel burning engine is not part of the drivetrain.

              Here's the problem ... if you use the current EPA "test drive", and the battery is fully charged, the engine to drive the generator never kicks in ... so the car has a basically "infinite" fuel mileage. If you run the same test drive starting with a discharged battery, then the engine driving the generator has to provide not only the electric power to drive the car, but also additional power to recharge the battery, which is "unfair" because the fuel used during the test is in excess of the fuel required simply to drive the car. Chevy has apparently been "discussing" with the EPA what the test should be ... and so far I haven't seen that they have come to agreement on a "fair" way to test these new hybrids that only use gasoline to recharge the batteries.

              Now you might think an easy way to do this is to start with a full battery and gas tank, and drive the vehicle until it shuts down ... divide the miles covered by the fuel used and "voila" we have a mileage number. Unfortunately the EPA ain't that smart. The current way they measure "fuel mileage" is by measuring the tail pipe emissions during the mileage test and then "calculating" the MPG number from that. That's why most people find it very hard to get the EPA number on the car in real life, which lead to the infamous "Your Mileage May Vary" statement.

              Chevy is fighting to get a 230 MPG rating for the Volt, but admits that if you drive the car starting with a full battery and fuel tank and run it until empty, the mileage is more like 50 mpg. But Chevy argues that since the car will spend some period of time running on electricity that was supplied to the car when it was plugged in, and not electricity supplied by the engine, and that people who buy the car will use it for a substantial time on grid supplied electricity, the car should get credit for that.

              These new hybrids (the Volt and the Jaguar) really can't be measured in MPG. If you use the car within the range of the batteries (for commuting, for example) then the MPG number is meaningless, as you would only burn gasoline in unusual circumstances (like a long trip, or an unexpected detour from your regular commute).

              Comment


              • #8
                If Jaguar was to make an electric/turbine hybrid commercially available it would most likely be in the XJ series due to its relative quietness and smoothness. As mentioned above, this combination takes advantage of the strengths of each type of power.

                Comment


                • #9
                  How do you keep the 4 electric motors in synch? I guess modern electronics could do the job. Jaguar has no plans to build this it is concept only:

                  Other than the aggressive styling, the big news on the Jaguar C-X75 Concept is the drivetrain. Mounted behind each wheel is a 195 horsepower electric motor combining to offer 780 horsepower and an incredible 1180lb-ft of torque from this hybrid Jaguar supercar. This drivetrain offers up to 68 miles of electric-only driving, although I would suspect that to be under calm driving conditions. However, with the aid of the twin micro-gas turbines keeping the batteries charged, Jaguar claims a range of 560 miles, a top speed of 205 miles per hour and the C-X75 can dash from 0-62 (100kmh) in just 3.4 seconds.
                  ...
                  Sadly, Jaguar execs state that the new C-X75 Concept will remain strictly as a concept but their goal to show that they could make a high performance supercar with Jaguar styling with an eco-friendly drivetrain. I would say that they succeeded in their efforts.
                  http://www.huliq.com/10281/paris-mot...-c-x75-concept

                  Brief video here:
                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ar-launch.html
                  Thanks Downforce!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Qdoba Addict View Post
                    How do you keep the 4 electric motors in synch? I guess modern electronics could do the job. Jaguar has no plans to build this it is concept only:
                    You don't really need modern electronics to sync electric motors. They managed to do it 39 years ago with this early electric off-road vehicle:



                    There's "off-road," and then there's OFF-ROAD!
                    "Only a fool fights in a burning house."-Kang

                    "If you listen to fools....The Maaahhhhb Ruuuules....."-Ronnie James Dio

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah, but that was all done on a sound stage in Hollywood ... we never really sent men to the moon ... that's as impossible as believing the earth is round ... what gomer's ....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BadazzZ06 View Post
                        Yeah, but that was all done on a sound stage in Hollywood ... we never really sent men to the moon ... that's as impossible as believing the earth is round ... what gomer's ....
                        Plus, those guys were able to get there using less computing power than I have in my phone. Which begs the question, why do they still need a room full of computers to launch a rocket? But, then again nobody ever accused NASA of adhering to the KISS philosophy.
                        It's impossible, that's sure. So let's start working.- Phillipe Petit

                        Talent borrows, Genius steals. - Pablo Picasso

                        Ah, there's nothing more exciting than science. You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention... Science has it all.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bombardier R142 View Post
                          Plus, those guys were able to get there using less computing power than I have in my phone. Which begs the question, why do they still need a room full of computers to launch a rocket? But, then again nobody ever accused NASA of adhering to the KISS philosophy.
                          A lot of people point that out; it's kind of misleading. They don't need 'em to LAUNCH it or even fly it; they need 'em to MONITOR it.

                          You don't really need a lot of computing power to actually guide a spacecraft to the Moon; it's essentially the same job antiaircraft and fighter radar fire-control systems had already been doing for years before that to put bullets and missiles into moving targets. The LM and CSM onboard computers didn't have to do much beyond assist in a few relatively simple guidance computations and feed that information into the spacecraft control systems. It's not like the astronauts were up there playing Mp3 files and checking their email and facebook in between editing or streaming video files and setting up PowerPoint presentations. But even back then the systems in the LCC at the Cape and MOCR in Houston, monitoring the telemetry and such, were rather more sophisticated than the lightweight, stripped-down onboard systems were. You still have more power at home today, but that same advancement allows NASA's controllers to work more quickly and accurately than they did 39 years ago, just like you and I can. (Of course, I was a newborn then.)
                          Last edited by Sea Fury; 10-03-2010, 02:39 AM.
                          "Only a fool fights in a burning house."-Kang

                          "If you listen to fools....The Maaahhhhb Ruuuules....."-Ronnie James Dio

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bombardier R142 View Post
                            Plus, those guys were able to get there using less computing power than I have in my phone. Which begs the question, why do they still need a room full of computers to launch a rocket? But, then again nobody ever accused NASA of adhering to the KISS philosophy.
                            Sea Fury has given one reason NASA tends to lag behind ... here's another ....

                            Back in the early 1990s I was working for a company that had some products that were developed for Massively Parallel Processing systems. I went to a meeting at NASA Ames Research Center here in the bay area to discuss some stuff with them. At the end of the formal meeting a few of the NASA guys and I hung out to talk about some detail issues, and to just generally shoot the bull. At one point one of the NASA guys mentioned they had a Cray Supercomputer, and I said "Wow, I've never seen a Cray in person, just pictures" and the NASA guy sheepishly replies "we'll be glad to show it to you, but it is a Cray-1, so don't be disappointed".

                            I told him I was delighted to hear it was a 1, as it was THE machine that made the Cray name, and had a very unusual architecture of an incomplete circle (as seen from above) "curved" backplane that the circuit boards then radiated out from. Surrounding the base of the machine on the outside was a wider band that held the power supplies, cooling equipment, etc., which someone at Cray had cleverly decided to top off with seat cushions, making the machine almost look like something you'd see in an airport waiting area.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cray-1.jpg

                            So, we go in the computer room and I get to see the Cray, then notice that the room is filled with other computers of similar "vintage" to the Cray-1, that is, many of the machines were probably at least 10 years old, with some being much older (the Cray would have been about 15 years old at that time).

                            In the world of mainframes and Supercomputers, usually about every 3 years is when a new model comes out, making 10 to 15 year old machines pretty much obsolete.

                            So, getting to the point, I ask the NASA guy why the have so many old machines, and he explains that the government procurement process is killing them.

                            He explained that, say Cray comes out with a brand new machine, and NASA decides it wants one. First they have to perform "studies" that show a new machine will save money either through lower costs and/or the increased processing power solving a problem. He said these studies often take months. Then the request has to go to NASA administration for a machine (with the studies backing the request). Once administrators approve the request (which apparently can run many months), then the money request has to go through the budget process, which can add many many more months. Finally, once the money is budgeted, then they have to write the RFP, requesting computer vendors to submit bids for the machine (unless it was a "sole source bid" ... but the guy said those were really tough to justify.).

                            The guy said to me "by this time, two or even three years may have elapsed since the first studies were done. In that time period, computer systems have evolved far enough along to basically make a mockery of our original numbers ... we may have approval to ask for an xTERAFLOP machine, but the computers now on the market are twice or three times that speed .... so we start the cycle all over again."

                            He further pointed out that in those cases where they do get a new machine, especially ones that are "mission critical" for manned space flight, as soon as the machine and its software are installed, everything is effectively "frozen" from that day on. Vendor software updates cannot be installed because that would mean that all the system testing would have to be done all over again to ensure that the altered software doesn't impact other software on the system. He said some of the computers at NASA were 20+ years old and the software on them was of the same vintage, and nobody would change it because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

                            Basically, the slow federal procurement process, along with NASA's own inertia to change, means that many (probably most) of their large computing systems belong in a museum, not a computer room.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              When they are installing the machines in manned spacecraft, that adds another layer of delay: "man-rating." Test, review, modify, test, review, modify," etc., until it meets requirements for reliability and safety, whereupon it's now certified for flight-4 years later.

                              The FAA is kind of the same way; homebuilders and small operations like Scaled Composites (Rutan) can be more innovative and build in the latest gadgets and tricks faster than Cessna or Piper or even biggies like Boeing can, because they don't have to go through the lengthy and expensive certification processes. But the flip side of the coin is, there is something to be said for mature, stupid technology. In an airplane (or a spacecraft), I'd gladly pass up cutting edge and new in favor of proven and reliable. I don't care if an engine or a computer is a little behind the technology curve if I am reasonably sure the thing won't break down when I need it the most. That's why I feel pretty safe flying a big dumb overbuilt biplane from 1942 behind a no-tech Pratt radial that dates back to the 1920s. It's old, but I know it will always work.

                              That's also why I tend to defend the Russian design philosophy sometimes. Like, for example, the Kalashnikov vs. the M16/AR-15/M4. A lot of folks will deride the Kalashnikov as inaccurate and primitive, praise the Stoner rifles as accurate and well-engineered. But I've owned the latter and have plenty of experience with the former, and I have to say if my life was going to depend on one of them, I'd actually chose the AK. It's a stupid weapon, but I'd be pretty confident it would always work when I needed it; my comparatively higher-tech AR-15 is too finicky. Fast forward to fighter planes; we build the qualitative best, most techy fighters out there, like the F-22. Which is great if you have a bunch of highly-trained specialists with expensive, specialized diagnostic and repair equipment to maintain the few of them you can get Congress to buy in safe and pristine distant airbases. But the Russians build cheap, simple, stupid airplanes by the bushel that are designed to be maintained in austere conditions by stupid draftee teenagers with a couple of hammers, two wrenches and a screwdriver. And that's also how they've managed to keep Soyuz in service for more than 40 years and keep using launch vehicles derived from the half-century-old R7. The Russians have an old saying: "The 'best' is often the enemy of 'good enough.'" We, on the other hand, tend to fall into the same dangerous technological conceit that the Germans did in WWII. They messed around building small numbers of the best tanks (Panthers and Tigers) and fighters (Me-262s) in the world, only to be overwhelmed by large numbers of primitive but reliable Shermans and T34s and Mustangs, Spitfires and Yaks that were "just good enough" to get the job done.
                              "Only a fool fights in a burning house."-Kang

                              "If you listen to fools....The Maaahhhhb Ruuuules....."-Ronnie James Dio

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X