## Controlled Power Technologies and Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium to unveil LC Super Hybrid at Geneva show; low-cost “micro-mild” demonstrator

##### 01 March 2012
 The LC Super Hybrid demonstrator. Click to enlarge.

The LC Super Hybrid, conceived by Controlled Power Technologies (CPT) and the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium (ALABC) to show that significant CO2 reduction can be achieved through electric hybridization at low voltages (12-48 volts) using the latest lead-carbon batteries, will make its world debut at the Geneva Motor Show. The applied micro-mild hybrid technology builds on previous work by CPT carried out with AVL, which built the LC Super Hybrid and handled the systems integration. The demonstrator further develops AVL’s efficient low carbon ELC concept (earlier post).

The production-ready technology offers the potential of a mass-market, gasoline-fueled family car with drivability, performance and 5.6 liters/100 km (42 mpg US) fuel consumption achieved at lower cost than an equivalent diesel model. The low-voltage technology enables aggressive, near-term down-sizing and down-speeding of existing engine families, the partners say.

 The demonstrator features a Valeo electric supercharger. Click to enlarge.

The LC Super Hybrid delivers CO2 emissions of less than 130g/km compared with 140 g/km for the baseline Passat 1.4-liter TSI and an even more significant reduction when compared with 160 g/km for the 1.8-liter TSI model. This represents a reduction in CO2 emissions of 8 and 23% respectively.

The low voltage (12V) “micro-mild” technology demonstrator includes a production-ready electric supercharger recently sold by CPT to the leading French tier 1 supplier Valeo (earlier post). Other international companies involved are powertrain developer and systems integrator AVL Schrick based in Austria and Germany, springy materials specialist Mubea also from Germany, and Provector, a leading expert in battery management systems, based in the UK.

 CPT SpeedStart stop-start technology. Click to enlarge.

The demonstrator is based on a series production 1.4-liter turbocharged VW Passat TSI model. Technologies include an electric supercharger; next generation belt-integrated starter generator with an advanced belt tensioning system; carbon enhanced valve regulated lead–acid (VRLA) batteries which avoid the need for supercapacitors, and higher gear ratios to reduce engine speed.

Recalibration of the engine increases power from 120 hp to 140 hp (89 kW to 104 kW) and torque from 200 to 275 N·m (148 to 203 lb-ft). This power and torque is more comparable with VW’s larger 1.8-liter TSI gasoline engine, which delivers 158 hp and 250 N·m; the engine output of the LC Super Hybrid is generally equivalent to vehicles in the 2-liter class. Despite the enhanced gasoline engine performance the vehicle achieves near diesel levels of fuel economy, but with lower production costs.

In 6th gear, which is taller even than the gearing in the baseline vehicle, the 80 to 120 km/h (50 to 75 mph) top gear acceleration is reduced by 3.5 seconds from 16.0 to 12.5 seconds. Similarly, the 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) time is reduced by 2.5 seconds from 11.1 to 8.7 seconds compared with the 1.4-liter TSI and achieves virtually the same acceleration (8.5 seconds) as the 1.8-liter TSI model.

The LC Super Hybrid incorporates CPT’s next-generation SpeedStart stop-start system, which includes intelligent torque and current control with enhanced stop-start capabilities. The SpeedStart system is an advanced belt-integrated starter generator (B-ISG) operating at 12 volts, and the first and only system based on the highly controllable switched reluctance motor-generator technology.

Low voltage switched reluctance (SR) motor-generators are not currently employed by the automotive industry in mass production. The motors are of simple, robust construction using steel, aluminium and copper and avoid the use of increasingly expensive rare earth materials required for permanent magnet motors. The SR technology is licensed from Nidec Corporation of Japan, one of the world’s leading suppliers of electric motors.

The Mubea belt tensioner system facilitates rapid reversals of the motor-generator and virtually halves the belt loads, reducing friction of the front end accessory drive system while significantly improving belt durability.

The carbon-enhanced lead–acid battery design (supplied by Exide Technologies) helps to maximize energy recuperation (regenerative braking) during deceleration, supporting SpeedStart’s potential for high power generation, torque smoothing and electrical energy recovery.

The improved lead-carbon battery design employed in the LC Super Hybrid allows for a strong charge and discharge characteristic, while the carbon-enhanced negative plate formulations significantly improve life under hybrid vehicle duty cycles. Further battery life improvements have been achieved via attention to battery management. These next-generation lead-acid batteries are already under test in pre-production vehicles.

The demonstrator adds about 79 kg to the curb weight of the baseline vehicle. However, much of this additional mass including the test equipment would be eliminated in a production vehicle as well as the existing starter motor, which is made redundant by the belt-integrated starter generator.

When designed for 48V, the low-voltage LC Super Hybrid is expected to deliver more than the nominal 25% improvement in CO2 emissions and fuel economy already achieved when compared with typical 2-liter naturally aspirated sedans, and will more than match their performance and drivability, the partners said.

The additional cost to the vehicle manufacturer is estimated between €750 and €1,500 (US$1,000 to$2,000).

We are confident we have met the challenge facing the automotive industry for cost efficient CO2 reduction technology, compatible with legislative demands and at showroom prices that consumers are willing and able to afford. There is no huge upfront cost with this technology and therefore no need for expensive subsidies from the taxpayer.

—Allan Cooper, European projects coordinator at ALABC

Cooper will present technical details of the LC Super Hybrid at the 5th International Advanced Mobility Forum (IAMF), a scientific and public meeting focused on future vehicle technologies, which draws together motor industry engineers and scientific experts. The annual forum is held in collaboration with Bern University of Applied Sciences, the Swiss association e’mobile, and other organisations. The event is supported by the world body for automotive engineering FISITA.

This technology needs to go industry-wide yesterday.

$1000-2000 for >25% reduction in fuel consumption. I agree with E-P--just do it, already. Then the question becomes, what do we do for the next 25% reduction (which we'll need in 3-4 years at standard rates of depletion)? Not so simple; half of everything rolling off the lines would need to be as good as the Chevy Volt. Mild hybrids is a good way to go, big savings for those idling in big city traffic. GM's eAssist is under$800 cost as an option on the Canadian Buick LaCrosse website.. a lower voltage system should be much lower cost.

Patent issues arise, just the belt tension device is probably protected. When patents keep us from making progress, they need to be reformed.

"when patents keep us from making progress, they need to be reformed."

A very well put collectivist view, as a rule historically collectivism has been far less able to provide advancement or improvement to the people or the environment.

The tragedy of the commons etc...

As for mild Hybrid systems IF it can reduce fuel use at a market sustainable price then by all means use it.

Better the Good that can be done than the Perfect that can not be achieved.

Limited patents?  Collectivist?  There is no natural right of property in ideas; they only exist because of a bargain between creators and the public:  their creations will be protected for a limited time IF and ONLY IF they are documented in a clear and obvious ("patent") fashion, so that others skilled in the art can understand and use them.

That bargain assumes that the public benefits, and if creators find ways to eliminate that benefit the public can properly deem the bargain to have been broken.

I do not know the globe you reside Engineer-poet, your description of the patent process ascribes reasons amd motives well beyond the scope of the US Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As can be seen there is no equivalent verbiage to your "so that others skilled in the art can understand and use them" but instead states "exclusive Right" with no direction as to how they may use that right.

You are of course correct that all law is part of the social contract, and any part of it may be changed as the society wishes... but not all change in improvement.

edit.. I do not know WHERE on the globe..
my apologizes for poor editing.

Patents are not monopoly licences, they are meant for the inventor to recover development costs and that is ALL.

" meant for the inventor to recover development costs and that is ALL."

So no profit motive ? again a fairly collectivist view.

again the tragedy of the commons.

They profit by competing and providing a better product at a better price, that is the American free enterprise market system.

While you talk about "collectivist", Japan, Korea and China's companies are working with their governments to dominate world markets.

While you talk free market philosophies on one hand, you condone monopoly licenses on the other. Which is it? Do we compete or do we sit back and rake in all those profits from our patent positions?

China abrogates patent law as part of business..and has labor practices in line with the 1890's. how many NEW ideas have you seen from it ?

Japan's MITI failed .. the economy has been stalled for nearly 2 decades Google Japan Lost Decade and Japan MITI

For patent data.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm

Your dislike of profit does seem constant.

You seem to be under the impression that ideas are "things", and for someone to acquire an idea takes it away from the previous person to have it.

Well, maybe that's your notion (sounds very Rand-ish), but it's not how things work in the real world.

Copyright and patent are bargains.  Writers and inventors can publish their ideas, and society at large (through government) won't let anyone else copy their ideas for a limited amount of time.  At the end of the protection period, the idea becomes part of the "public domain" and everyone can do as they want with it.  If the public didn't get the benefit of the public domain at the end, the public would have no interest in providing the courts and police at the beginning; that's the other half of the bargain.

There is also "trade secret" protection, which can last indefinitely but requires inventors to keep their innovations secret (as opposed to "patent", obvious).  This is handled with contract law, and obviously it doesn't work with inventions which have to be revealed by the nature of the products sold.

Nestor, Trey, there is nothing wrong with profit. But patents are government-granted monopolies, and the government is absolutely empowered to set terms and conditions in the public interest.

We would have lost WWII if the US and the UK had not appropriated (with compensation) the patents in radio technologies, in particular radar. That's just one example. Similarly, governments around the world use their power to limit patent monopolies in negotiation with the multinational pharma companies so that their citizens can get needed medicines at reasonable prices. The only country so corrupt that it does not protect it's citizens in this way is the US.

You are arguing from a free market absolutist position that only exists in the mind of a US, Rebublican lobbyist. If we want to eliminate patent barriers to implementation of mild hybrid technologies across the US vehicle fleet, we can impose a mandatory licensing regime tomorrow. Perfectly legal, even in the US.

"But patents are government-granted monopolies" correct with out them innovation suffers.

My statemts are in no way absolutist but are in line with the US Constitution as I quoted.

Radar as a concept (Maxwell/Hertz) was well known.

"The fundamental principle of the radar belongs to the common patrimony of the physicists : after all, what is left to the real credit of the technicians is measured by the effective realisation of operational materials" Maurice Ponte

"we can impose a mandatory licensing regime tomorrow" only with the acquiescence of the Courts (far to often the case) to not uphold the Constitution. I will agree that the Constitution has mechanism for amending it.

It is amazing how often those that wish to "help" everyone so easily trample those that disagree... I.E. in this case Patent Holders.

We need to examine how many are issued and for how long a period of time. Many patents never make it to market and are never licensed. Some sit there like land mines waiting to blow up when anyone walks by. This does not make for an innovative society.

Nestor, it is amazing how right wingers who whip out the Constitution have no idea what it actually says or means. Here is a link to a bunch of resources on compulsory patent licensing by the US government, a common practice that is authorized by the Constitution and enshrined in literally dozens of US statutes. If we chose to have the US issue compulsory licenses to mild hybrid technologies for the purpose of energy security, it could literally happen tomorrow. There would be negotiation or court cases to determine what royalties are owed the patent holders, but it is really a simple eminient domain problem.

Learn some law before you position yourself as some sort of expert.

Gee and here was me thinking that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and all others are subordinate to it. Thus my quotation.

Note the word EXCLUSIVE.

The history of "nationalizing" sectors of an economy have worked so well... please see Mexico and Wage and Price Controls under Nixon..

Eminent domain.. fan of the Kelo decison I see.

Note the word EXCLUSIVE.Note the words limited time.

There's also the little detail that use of such rights against either the public or national interest (thinking of the NiMH patents bought and abused by Cobasys) merits abridging or removing such rights.  Anti-competitive uses of patents do not serve the public interest and do not merit public expenditures on their defense.

There is no Capitalism only Crony Capitalism operating in the US.

Nestor, I am a fan of the rule of law. I have described the law accurately, and given you citations and historical examples. The fact that you persist in your ignorance, and cite irrelevant examples of other "nationalizations" out of your anti-government paranoia speaks for itself.

Maybe some of us could eliminate the name calling, it does not make for a good discussion. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean you start calling them names.

If they insult you, you can insult them back for what little good that might do. Leadership has to do with persuading others to see your point of view. Some are not leaders and others are blind, this does not bode well for the species.

SJC. Nobody on this thread has called anybody names. People have staked out positions. Those positions have names.

The comments to this entry are closed.