The Volvo ReCharge: A Different Kind of Hybrid
Sometimes when looking forward, you have to look back to really get inspired.
110 years ago electric cars were at their peak, representing over a quarter of all cars on the road in America, but Henry Ford and the mass-production gas motor changed all that. And while most of us have gotten used to the idea of an engine under the hood, a transmission, and sometimes a driveshaft as integral to our cars, Volvo is taking a nod from the first electric carriages and putting their motors where they are most needed: the wheels. The Volvo ReCharge is a plug-in hybrid concept that relys on four indepedant electric motors, one in each wheel, to move and power the C30-based concept.
- » See also: Sporty Volt SS Possible, Cadillac Converj Gets Green Light
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
The ReCharge concept is said to get 60 miles on electric power, and a small petrol engine sooths range anxiety. Volvo is also known for some of the world’s safest cars, and true to form the ReCharge boasts numerous safety advantages over its petrol-powered cousin. There is no driveshaft or transmission, which means a solid firewall and flat floors and increased energy efficiency. Should one motor fail, the other three can compensate for their fallen comrade and keep you moving. Also, there are no brakepads, but rather the motors do the stopping, which also serves to restore some lost energy via regenerative braking.
Volvo was in talks with the Swedish government for small-scale fleet testing of the ReCharge, which is said to be the basis for an upcoming 2012 production car from Volvo, though not much has been heard of the ReCharge since it debuted at the 2007 Frankfurt auto show.
Source: MSN Autos
More from the original Volvo press release.
You know what, i actually do not generally like cars, period. But this volvo is really nice looking and if they had a full electric version, replaceing that motor with 50km more range, i think this would be perfect. Now i know it will take about 3-4 years to get this thing made, but batteries will also improve in that time frame, so maybe a 120km range is not impossible. If it comes in under 40,000 euro they may just sell some too.
Two words. Unsprung weight.
It would be like having a 50# wheel at each corner. No thanks.
Since the concept of a SPRUNG HUB is almost as old as the electric motor, it is doubtful that unsprung weight will be a problem.
Because electric motors generate maximum torque at stall, the required horsepower is considerably less than that required from an internal combustion engine, and rare earth magnets have made it possible to obtain considerable power from very light weight motors.
If you are going to bash something Max, that ’s fine, but you would do yourself a favor by getting your high school physics books out and learning something about what you are trying to bash. If you can’t find it there, try the library.
Well, it looks to me like the motor in their design is on the ground side of the suspension, not the body side. You would need something between the wheel & motor to act as a spring. Unless I’m missing something magical about the lugs. My concern is handling, not overcoming the rotational inertia.
There are advantages from a handling perspective as well, that’s about as low as you can get from a Center of Gravity perspective. And having the weight equally distributed out near the corners should be good for transitional behavior. It’s things like potholes that could be a problem.
Potholes could be a problem for durability as well. I can’t imagine a 60mph impact with some of the road craters I’ve seen being good for longevity no matter what the motor weighs.
I would also be interested in some braking demonstrations. Relying entirely on regenerative braking makes me nervous, mainly because it hasn’t been done. But as long as the motor can create enough load to take the tires to their limit of adhesion in a panic stop there’s no problem. I wonder how a “parking brake” would work?
Chuck, I think you need to go back to school. Max is right. The engine is on the wheel and not the body, its unsprung weight. And it has nothing to do with magnets, horsepower and torque. Its unsprung weight because it’s a mass on the suspension part that moves with the wheel up and down as the suspension moves. There are alternative designs that put small engines in the body next to the wheel, with almost no energy loss. Alpha even put the brake disks this way many years ago to reduce unsprung weight.
It really does not make any sense without regenerative breaking, is that the case here?
I was fascinated when I first saw this in-wheel-motor design and am now excited to see they may have it in dealerships by 2012 (did I hear that right?). As for the un-sprung mass issue, I have always heard less is better but will admit to not fully understanding the physics of why. The question I have is, will the difference be significant in anything other than a high-end performance vehicle?
Tree hugger, the idea of putting the four motors “near” each wheel with short drive shafts sounds like a clever solution to the problem. The in-wheel design still has some benefits but again, the question is how much difference the un-sprung mass actually makes in the real world.
These are the very early stages of what will inevitably become a new era in car design; one where the dirty internal combustion engine yields to the elegant electric motor. And that is a great thing!