1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Prius 101 for the Physics Syncophant

Discussion in 'Gen 2 Prius Main Forum' started by EricGo, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    I admit it. I am really, really bad at physics. So please, don't rub it in, but do help me clarify a bit of confusion:

    Tramway Rd from I-25 heading east until it hits the Sandia Mountains in Albuquerque is about 5 km long and 330 meters up. I think about it a lot, because it sits between me and home, and I watch my FE plummet each and every time I drive it. So you will sympathize with my desire to drive that patch of road in the most efficient manner possible. It is often not congested, has no signals, and has a shoulder I can slide onto to let cars pass if need be, so I have a lot of latitude in picking my driving speed. Experience has taught me that slower is better. My MFD tells me the same, because if I try to drive much over 70 kph, the HV depletes and I end up with a high revving ICE that makes me shudder just thinking about it.

    And yet --

    54 kph is 15 meters/second, or 1 meter elevation gained per second
    Pulling the car up one meter requires 1350 kg * 1 meter = 1350 Joules of energy,
    So in one second, 1.35 kW of power. Doubling my speed then should double my power requirements for the elevation change, or 2.7 kW.

    The Prius ICE is reportedly efficient in the ~ 20 - 40 kW range. So why the problem with another 0.45 kW, to travel say at 20 meters/sec ??

    (I did change the numbers just a bit to make calcs simple)
     
  2. SomervillePrius

    SomervillePrius New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    944
    6
    0
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    I think what you are missing is wind resistance. The faster you go the more of your fuel is spent just pushing through the air. At lower speeds it's less visible.

    So while the Prius EV might be good enough to lift your car those meters it also needs to push a lot of air out of it's way.
     
  3. hobbit

    hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    4,089
    468
    0
    Location:
    Bahstahn
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Managing your climb rate to deplete the battery to maybe three
    bars by the top of your ascent should actually improve mileage
    overall, because that gives you more capacity to store some of the
    energy coming back down. But no, you shouldn't feel like you have
    to totally punch it on the way up, even though air resistance at
    70 kph is still a relatively minor factor. [kph, not mph...]
    .
    The ICE is actually at its best efficiency between 15 and 35+ kw
    output -- a rather flat curve, in fact. Have a gander at
    http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/prius-curves.gif
    and think about adding a tach as a guide to how much you're
    requesting. I don't think crawling over mountains is a contributor
    to low mileage so much as just loafing along at medium speeds
    without letting the ICE shut down is. Thus, pulse-n-glide.
    .
    _H*
     
  4. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,193
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I think you're putting way too much thought into this. There's almost nothing you can do to improve your FE on a road like this other than to either go slower or avoid the route altogether.

    5km is just over 2 miles...an almost insignificant distance even if you're FE is only 20mpg.

    I say pick a speed...prob. the speed limit. Set the Cruise control and let it do it's thing.

    Remember that your FE on the way down will be nearly equally as much better as it was bad on the way up....you can even use the gravity more to your advantage by trying to glide and allow speed to build as much as you're comfortable with.
     
  5. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    A flaw in your logic is that the relationship between power and speed is exponential, not linear. Doubling the speed requires 2 to the tooth more power, not just double.
     
  6. thejq

    thejq Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    34
    0
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I admit that I've forgot most of my physics which I was pretty good at back in College (never gotten less than 95% on exams B) ). I think you're missing a few points here in your calculation.

    1. You're mixing up potential energy with electrical energy. Electrical energy is first converted into mechanical energy, then stored as potential energy when climbing up hills. Of course, in the process, energy is lost due to friction and heat.

    2. When coming down hill, the reverse happens. But still there's lost of energy.

    With that said, I'm no expert in what's the best way to drive through hills, but I tend to agree that using the battery on a up hill as much as possible to leave room for charge on the down hill may give you better results.
     
  7. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    hyo:
    My writing was unclear -- that doubling of power requirement was only regarding the addition needed for the elevation change.

    Somerville:
    A 33% increase in speed from 15 to 20 m/s translates into 1.33^2 = 77% more air resistance -- around 2 kW at these speeds, I think. I'll double check when I find my PDA with W. Brown's simulator. Nowhere near enough to take the ICE out of it's 'zone'.

    Evan & Hobbit:
    I do go down after going up, but not immediately. A flat in between recharges the battery despite my wishes. I am not trying to manage the HV, but rather understand why the speed increase takes such a large hit on FE, which suggests to me that the ICE is inefficient at the higher speed.
     
  8. Kiloran

    Kiloran New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    1,225
    3
    0
    No. As long as his speed is constant (beginning to end) there is no change to his kinetic energy.

    Yes. You are bad at physics. :rolleyes:
    1350 kg * 1 meter/second * 9.8 Newtons/kg = 13230 Joules/second = 13.23 kw
     
  9. Judyg

    Judyg New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    5
    0
    0
    Hey, I know ABSOULTELY nothing about Physics, but I am from Albuquerque :) and know that stretch of road too well. Just went to my local (Santa Cruz, CA) dealership to get on the list for an 06.... :huh:
     
  10. espoafd

    espoafd New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    88
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I am also in Albuquerque and live off of Tramway & Copper. I can't really help with any real world experience yet though because I am still on a waiting list.

    Scott
     
  11. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    Scott and Judy -- this is great !

    We'll knock those smug calis off their 'capital of the Prius world' yet ;)

    Kiloran -- the car's 1350 kg is weight, and not mass, no ?
     
  12. Betelgeuse

    Betelgeuse Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    1,460
    24
    1
    Location:
    New York, NY, USA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Actually, you should try to go up the hill on an empty battery. A lot of fuel is wasted hauling all those extra electrons up the hill. :p
     
  13. Betelgeuse

    Betelgeuse Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    1,460
    24
    1
    Location:
    New York, NY, USA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Mass is defined in such a way that it is equal to the weight on Earth.

    When the interplanetary Prius arrives, let me know. For that, I'll pay over MSRP.
     
  14. Kiloran

    Kiloran New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    1,225
    3
    0
    Nope. (Well, "sort of" if you are not an engineer.)
    Kilogram is a unit of mass.
    Newton is a unit of force or weight (i.e. gravity).
    The weight of 1kg under the gravitational attraction of the Earth is 9.8 N (Newtons).
    So the weight (downward force) of a Prius is actually 13230 Newtons (although lay people do not generally use Newtons).
    The power required to raise a mass of 1 kg by 1 meter is 9.8 Joules.
    To do so, repeatedly, at the rate of 1 m/s requires a power of 9.8 Watts.
    To do this for a Prius with a mass of 1350 kg requires 13.23kW.
     
  15. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    So when the Toyota website says: The car weighs 1350 Kg (approx), is it reporting mass or newtons ?
     
  16. Kiloran

    Kiloran New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    1,225
    3
    0
    It is reporting the vehicle's mass.
    The average man-on-the-street does not differentiate between the mass of an object and its weight and so, generally uses the terms interchangeably.
    Marketers use the terms that the average man-on-the-street will understand, in this case weight and kilogram.
    It's not correct but you understood what they meant.
     
  17. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    I'll be damned. I have misunderstood that all these years :(

    So in the classic kid's question: If I weigh X Kg on Earth, how much would I weigh on the moon, the answer is: X Kg, because mass remains constant ?

    Jeez, I even remember the answer wrong.

    LOL. I finally get it. Weight's units are newtons, but common language reports mass. But when we go out to space, we continue to talk about weight, but switch over to newtons.
     
  18. jeneric

    jeneric New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    442
    1
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    Probably because it's pretty much the same "on-the-street."
     
  19. Kiloran

    Kiloran New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    1,225
    3
    0
    They are very different.
    It's just that the man-on-the-street doesn't know (or generally need to know) what the word "mass" really means.

    Mass is an abstraction, the resistance of a thing to having its momentum changed.
    Weight is a force and the force of gravity is a tangible thing.

    When the average man-on-the-street holds an object of 1kg in his hand, he feels its weight (~2.2lb or 9.8N) and calls its weight a kilogram.
    It's considered appropriate to equate the two in ordinary day-to-day situations but it's not correct to do so in physical equations.
     
  20. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    Thank you Kiloran !

    The man in the street can stay confused.

    As for me,
    I mass 60 Kg
    I weigh ~ 600 Newts

    And I dare anybody to prove me wrong :)