This is just a quick note for some research I did this morning. I was googling in-wheel motors, which seem to be pretty popular in a lot of areas, and somewhat controversial, since having a wheel with a motor in it seriously increases unsprung weight. There is some offset, as removing the engine and drive train removes a huge amount of sprung weight, you decide for yourself I guess. Unsprung weight makes for a lousy ride and poor handling, so if you are willing to make the sacrifice, I guess it is worth it.
So, when I was looking into regenerative braking, I ran across this study at Bradley University which shows regenerative braking in action. The result — they were able to recapture a bit over 10% from the motor, back into the batteries. Much lower than I had hoped. A bit more research shows that hydraulic regeneration is much more efficient, although it is also heavier, and more expensive.
Then I got to thinking — what if instead of an electric motor on each axle, we had a hydraulic motor? And could the motor be moved to the sprung side of the axle to alleviate the unsprung weight problem? It would seem to me that it would only be a universal joint away from being do-able.
Can hydralic motors be capable of this type of performance? How many RPMs does it take to move a wheel to get a desired MPH? Here is a good site for RPMs to MPH conversion (just put in 1 for all of the gearing boxes). It looks like with a 15″ wheel, 1500 RPMs will reach 66 MPH, and 2000 RPMs will reach 89 MPH. Here is a good site which describes how to size hydraulic motors for an application. I wonder how expensive it would be? If a single motor was used to drive and brake, it would be ideal — from both weight, and cost perspectives.
BTW, another good link for statistics of large cars vs. small cars in crash tests report the obvious — if you drive a tank, you are less likely to get pulverized. If you are driving a microcar, if you get in a high-speed crash with a larger vehicle, someone will be likely to be picking you out of their radiator. Large cars have more metal to absorb energy, and there are some fundamental properties of physics which are difficult to alter (force=mass*acceleration – thanks to Mr. Newton). Large trucks and SUVs are also built higher off the ground — so large vs. small will result in the passenger in a large truck being situated above the accident, whereas the passengers in a micro car are basically going to take the brunt of a full-size engine block headed right for them. I noticed a bunch of links when I googled this, the Smart car got high crash test ratings, so lots of people were posting how great that is. Of course it rated high for the small/micro class rating for the car size — more proof for how to lie with statistics. Sure, small car handling is great for avoiding accidents, but once you get in one, a small car turns into a coffin with wheels real quick.