Amit Soman, COO, EcoMotors Head.On EcoMotors' Design
The impact of fuel economy in any engine comes from friction, metal-to-metal parts rubbing against each other. If you can reduce friction, you make the most dramatic impact on fuel economy. That's the first dot we start with in our engine. If we have less moving parts, then we will have less friction and better fuel economy. That is the premise of the whole design. If we have less parts then the weight of the engine is much less. As of now, the engine we are running for comparable power, to make sure it is apples-to-apples, is about 35 per cent lighter for the same power output. Along with weight, the size is less. Cost is less. All these are secondary benefits, those are not the goals we went in for but those are substantial amounts. They contribute to the overall economic equation. Connecting the last dot on this, with lesser components and this compactness, we have the ability to connect two engines side by side. You can almost call it power on demand if you will. This inherentness in the design cannot be achieved in a conventional engine. Conventional engine guys are doing it more from the perspective of cylinder deactivation, valve deactivation. But still, in that case, the piston motion continues. In our case, after physically declutching, you are essentially reducing half the friction.
On the need to reinvent the internal combustion engine
Tighter fuel economy standards are coming and what exists are fossil fuel burning options. So what are the options then to bridge these two things? Number one is some methodology of a substantially researched and developed to conventional engines. How do we bridge the gap in substantial improvements in conventionals? Path two is some sort of alternate energy. It could be natural gas, it could be hybrids or it could be electric vehicles (EVs). First let's talk about the conventional engines. Almost every original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in the world has legacy assets. You've got $300 to $400 million plants that have been invested for in the last 12 to 15 years. So the propensity to invest in something new is lesser, or making radical changes is lesser because of the legacy assets. Economic growth in any of those markets has been going through ups and downs. Europe shrunk and the other markets by somewhere between two to nine per cent, let's say. Legacy assets and slow and unpredictable economic growth will prevent conventional engine guys from making any dramatic radical changes- and incremental improvements are not enough. Let's look at the second one (alternate energy). It could be natural gas, ethanol, even hybrids to some extent, the uncertainty there is from the unpredictability of the resources cost as well as any kind of infrastructure. Let's talk about EVs. The unfortunate thing is that what gets talked about in EVs is safety. Because some kind of burning Tesla comes up in a video online. Unfair representation of Tesla, it was probably an incorrect use of the vehicle and it was one in God knows how many vehicles. But safety comes to the forefront, unfortunately. The second thing that rightly comes to the fore is cost, that from a payback perspective, it is still a 10 to 11-year payback. The third, which is also the obvious one is infrastructure density. My point of view is that these three: the safety, cost and infrastructure density are to a large extent the outcome of the commitment made by the EVs, industry or government. Meaning these three can be fixed in a matter of 10 years. I don't think it is out of the ordinary to expect that suddenly a country can have recharging stations. My perspective is point number 4: even if we have these things. I mean how long does it take for you at a gas station to fill up a car? Six minutes, eight minutes?