Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 63 PageID #:
`13244
`
`EXHIBIT V
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 63 PageID #:
`13245
`
`INL/EXT-14-33118
`
`Agricultural Industry
`Advanced Vehicle
`Technology: Benchmark
`Study for Reduction in
`Petroleum Use
`
`
`
`Roger Hoy
`Rodney Rohrer
`Adam Liska
`Joe Luck
`Loren Isom
`Deepak Keshwani
`
`September 2014
`
`
`
`The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
`operated by Battelle Energy Alliance
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 63 PageID #:
`13246
`
`
`
`
`
`DISCLAIMER
`This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
`agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any
`agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed
`or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
`completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or
`process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
`owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product,
`process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise,
`does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
`or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and
`opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
`those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 63 PageID #:
`13247
`
`
`
`INL/EXT-14-33118
`
`Agricultural Industry Advanced Vehicle Technology:
`Benchmark Study for Reduction in Petroleum Use
`
`Roger Hoy1
`Rodney Rohrer1
`Adam Liska1
`Joe Luck1
`Loren Isom1
`Deepak Keshwani1
`
`1 University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Nebraska
`Tractor Test Laboratory
`
`September 2014
`
`Idaho National Laboratory
`Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
`
`
`http://www.inl.gov
`
`Prepared for the
`U.S. Department of Energy
`Office of Nuclear Energy
`Under DOE Idaho Operations Office
`Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 63 PageID #:
`13248
`
`
`
`CONTENTS
`ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ v 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`FARM DIESEL USE IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................ 1 
`
`TRACTOR DIESEL EFFICIENCY—PRIMARY FUEL USE .......................................................... 4 
`
`2.1  Tractor Mechanics .................................................................................................................... 4 
`
`2.1.1  Engine ......................................................................................................................... 6 
`2.1.2  Waste Heat Recovery .................................................................................................. 7 
`2.1.3  Powertrain ................................................................................................................... 8 
`2.1.4  Remote Power (Hydraulic, Mechanical, Electric) .................................................... 12 
`2.1.5  Tires and Tire Pressure ............................................................................................. 18 
`
`IMPLEMENT OPERATIONS—SECONDARY FUEL USE ......................................................... 20 
`
`ALTERNATIVE FUELS ................................................................................................................. 22 
`
`4.1  Biofuels .................................................................................................................................. 22 
`
`4.1.1  Biodiesel ................................................................................................................... 22 
`4.1.2  Ethanol ...................................................................................................................... 23 
`
`4.2  Hydrogen ................................................................................................................................ 25 
`
`4.3  Natural Gas Substitution in Tractors ...................................................................................... 25 
`
`4.3.1  Natural Gas-Fueled Tractors ..................................................................................... 25 
`4.3.2  Natural Gas Resources and Prices ............................................................................ 26 
`4.3.3  Natural Gas Infrastructure: Refueling Sites and Fuel Storage .................................. 27 
`4.3.4  Trends in Heavy Trucks: Diesel Substitution with Natural Gas ............................... 27 
`
`5. 
`
`FARMING SYSTEMS—SECONDARY FUEL USE ..................................................................... 28 
`
`5.1  Cultural Practices ................................................................................................................... 28 
`
`5.1.1  Equipment Selection and Operations Management................................................... 28 
`5.1.2  Tillage Considerations .............................................................................................. 29 
`
`5.2 
`
`Precision Agriculture and Machinery Automation ................................................................. 31 
`
`5.2.1  Guidance and Automatic Section Control Technologies ........................................... 31 
`5.2.2  Variable Rate Application of Crop Inputs ................................................................ 31 
`5.2.3  Precision Tillage ....................................................................................................... 32 
`5.2.4  Robotics and Autonomous Machinery ...................................................................... 33 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS* ......................................................................... 34 
`
`REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 36 
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 63 PageID #:
`13249
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`FIGURES
`Historical United States diesel consumption. “Farm” includes all diesel use on the farm
`and “Off-Highway” includes forestry, construction, and industrial ............................................. 1 
`
`Estimated diesel use by harvested crop in 2010 for reduced tillage: A) harvested area
`by crop and B) estimated diesel use by crop. Note: “other crops” consists of 28
`individual crops ............................................................................................................................ 2 
`
`Cropping cycle and diesel use per operation for corn with mulch tillage practice ....................... 2 
`
`Farm diesel use and harvested acres 1993 through 2010 .............................................................. 2 
`
`Cost per acre for crop inputs ......................................................................................................... 3 
`
`Annual, average, specific, volumetric fuel consumption for power take-off and drawbar
`power for diesel tractors ............................................................................................................... 4 
`
`Annual, average, specific, volumetric fuel consumption for power take-off power by
`power take-off power level for diesel tractors .............................................................................. 5 
`
`Annual, average, specific, volumetric fuel consumption for drawbar power by drawbar
`power level for diesel tractors ....................................................................................................... 5 
`
`Discrepancy between existing performance tests (black) and probable in-field load
`distributions (red) ......................................................................................................................... 6 
`
`Prototype waste heat recovery system developed by Behr ........................................................... 8 
`
`Belarus 3023 tractor with electro-mechanical powertrain .......................................................... 10 
`
`Rigitrac EWD120 tractor with electric powertrain ..................................................................... 10 
`
`ZF TERRA+ starter generator in combination with the continuously variable S-Matic
`transaxle ...................................................................................................................................... 11 
`
`AGCO ElectRoGator 1386 ......................................................................................................... 11 
`
`Energy losses in mobile load sensing hydraulic application ...................................................... 13 
`
`Pressure flow curve, single pump, dual function ........................................................................ 14 
`
`ZF TERRA+ electrification schematic ....................................................................................... 15 
`
`Trailer with electrically powered traction axle ........................................................................... 16 
`
`Electric pump drive (top) and UX eSpray components schematic (bottom) .............................. 17 
`
`John Deere patent for round baler with electrically driven roller ............................................... 18 
`
` iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 63 PageID #:
`13250
`
`
`
`John Deere patent for electrically driven threshing cylinder ...................................................... 18 
`
`Galileo wheel with accordion-shape sidewall design ................................................................. 20 
`
`Diesel use by operation for combines and tractors with implements ......................................... 21 
`
`United States biodiesel production ............................................................................................. 23 
`
`New Holland’s NH2 hydrogen-powered tractor ......................................................................... 25 
`
`Natural gas tractors: a. Profi 4135, dedicated natural gas; b. retrofit dual fuel; and c.
`Valtra T133, dual fuel production hybrid ................................................................................... 26 
`
`Trends in tillage practices in the United States ........................................................................... 30 
`
`Diesel use by crop and tillage practice ....................................................................................... 30 
`
`SPIRIT tractor ............................................................................................................................. 33 
`
`Travel path for two grain carts (blue and black) overlaid on yield map for 120-acre corn
`field ............................................................................................................................................. 34 
`
`TABLES
`Specifications for tractors fueled by natural gas, biogas, and diesel .......................................... 26 
`
`Estimated U.S. diesel consumption by crop in 201 .................................................................... 29 
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
` iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 63 PageID #:
`13251
`
`
`
`ACRONYMS
`
`ASC
`CNG
`CVT
`GPS
`LNG
`NG
`NTTL
`OECD
`PTO
`VRA
`
`automatic section control
`compressed natural gas
`continuously variable transmissions
`global positioning system
`liquid natural gas
`natural gas
`Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory
`Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
`power take-off
`variable rate application
`
`
`
`
` v
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 63 PageID #:
`13252
`
`
`
`Agricultural Industry Advanced Vehicle Technology:
`Benchmark Study for Reduction in Petroleum Use
`1. FARM DIESEL USE IN THE UNITED STATES
`Diesel use on farms in the United States has remained relatively constant since 1985, decreasing
`slightly in 2009, which may be attributed to price increases and the economic recession (Figure 1). During
`this time, the United States’ harvested area also has remained relatively constant at roughly 300 million
`acres. In 2010, farm diesel use was 5.4% of the total United States diesel use. Crops accounting for an
`estimated 65% of United States farm diesel use include corn, soybean, wheat, hay, and alfalfa,
`respectively, based on harvested crop area and a recent analysis of estimated fuel use by crop (Figure 2).1
`Diesel use in these cropping systems primarily is from tillage, harvest, and various other operations
`(e.g., planting and spraying) (Figure 3). Diesel efficiency is markedly variable due to machinery types,
`conditions of operation (e.g., soil type and moisture), and operator variability. Farm diesel use per acre
`has slightly decreased in the last two decades (Figure 4) and diesel is now estimated to be less than 5% of
`farm costs per acre (Figure 5).
`This report will explore current trends in increasing diesel efficiency in the farm sector. The report
`combines a survey of industry representatives, a review of literature, and data analysis to identify nascent
`technologies for increasing diesel efficiency.
`
`
`Figure 1. Historical United States diesel consumption. “Farm” includes all diesel use on the farm and
`“Off-Highway” includes forestry, construction, and industrial (source: DOE/EIA Annual Energy Review
`2011 Table 5.152).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 63 PageID #:
`13253
`
`
`
`Figure 2. Estimated diesel use by harvested crop in 2010 for reduced tillage: A) harvested area by crop
`and B) estimated diesel use by crop. Note: “other crops” consists of 28 individual crops (source: data
`plotted from Table 2).
`
`Figure 3. Cropping cycle and diesel use per operation for corn with mulch tillage practice.3
`
`Figure 4. Farm diesel use and harvested acres 1993 through 2010 (source: fuel use data from U.S. Annual
`Energy Review 2011, harvested acreage data from USDA NASS).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 63 PageID #:
`13254
`
`
`
`Figure 5. Cost per acre for crop inputs.4 (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 12 of 63 PageID #:
`13255
`
`
`
`2. TRACTOR DIESEL EFFICIENCY—PRIMARY FUEL USE
`2.1 Tractor Mechanics
`Although most mechanized agricultural operations include a tractor as a primary power unit, the
`tractor itself is not particularly useful without an implement attached. The implement has a task-specific
`design, which engages the soil or crop to carry out tillage, cultivation, harvest, and other operations. Most
`modern tractors provide power for implements via a drawbar, power take-off (PTO) shaft, and/or fluid
`power hydraulics. Much effort and focus has been directed at tractors because it is where the fuel is
`consumed to generate mechanical power. Innovations and efficiency improvements in tractor engines,
`powertrains, and auxiliary power systems have been ongoing since tractors were invented a century ago
`and significant gains have been realized.
`Specific fuel consumption (horsepower hours per gallon [Hp-h/gal] or kilowatt-hours per liter
`[kWh/L-1) for tractors tested at the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory (NTTL) from 1958 to 2012
`improved by 19.7% for PTO power and 23.4% for drawbar power when comparing data averaged over
`the last 5 years of this period versus the first 5 years of this period (Figure 6). It should be noted that
`trends based on NTTL data do not necessarily include all tractor models produced by industry (although
`for tractors sold in the United States, there would be few exceptions); and minimum tractor power
`requiring an official test has increased over the years to eliminate the necessity of testing small tractors
`not intended for use in commercial agriculture (e.g., garden tractors).
`4.0 
`
` 
`
`PTO 
`drawbar
`
`3.0 
`
`2.0 
`
`1.0 
`
`kWh L‐1 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`0.0 
`1955   1960   1965   1970   1975   1980   1985   1990   1995   2000   2005   2010   2015 
`Figure 6. Annual, average, specific, volumetric fuel consumption for power take-off and drawbar power
`for diesel tractors (source: NTTL data).
`
`
`
`Increased specific fuel consumption was observed in tractors with higher PTO power levels, which
`may be due to parasitic loads being a smaller fraction of gross power as power levels increase (Figures 7
`and 8). Reasons for the overall trend in improved specific fuel consumption for PTO and drawbar
`operations are not well documented, but contributions include improvements in engine and powertrain
`efficiency, fuel systems, turbocharging, manufacturing (e.g., tighter tolerances, advanced materials, etc.),
`fuel and lubricants, reduction in parasitic loads (e.g., variable fans, closed center hydraulics, etc.), tire
`design (e.g., bias vs. radial tires), and machine setup and operation (e.g., optimal ballasting, shift-up-
`throttle-back, etc.). It should be noted that some high-power tractors are intended primarily for high draft
`drawbar applications and the PTO may designed to transmit only a portion of available engine power;
`therefore, specific fuel consumption for PTO power may be skewed because it is does not reflect full
`engine power efficiency.
`Standard test procedures (such as Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]
`Code 2, “Standard Code for the Official Testing of Agricultural and Forestry Tractor Performance”) are
`used to characterize tractor performance; however, they do not evaluate efficiency for in-field operations
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 13 of 63 PageID #:
`13256
`
`
`
`where loads can vary significantly (due to differences in implement design, operator style, and crop, field,
`and soil characteristics) and have a combination of simultaneous power demands (e.g., drawbar, PTO, and
`hydraulic). An example of an engine torque curve and associated load points, as measured with OECD
`Code 2 procedures, along with a theoretical load distribution, is shown (Figure 9). The actual distribution
`of loads for typical agricultural tractor operations is not known. Idle time is thought to be 20 to 30% of
`tractor run time and many processes do not require sustained operation at full load. Remaining operations
`are a variety of partial loads that are not captured in existing test procedures. If actual load distributions
`were known, advanced test procedures could be developed to better evaluate loads and related efficiencies
`that are more representative of in-field operations.
`
`Figure 7. Annual, average, specific, volumetric fuel consumption for power take-off power by power
`take-off power level for diesel tractors (source: NTTL data).
`
`Figure 8. Annual, average, specific, volumetric fuel consumption for drawbar power by drawbar power
`level for diesel tractors (source: NTTL data).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 14 of 63 PageID #:
`13257
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 9. Discrepancy between existing performance tests (black) and probable in-field load distributions
`(red).
`
`The following subsections describe the innovations still under development that are intended to
`further improve machine efficiency.
`2.1.1
`Engine
`Nearly all modern tractors used in commercial agriculture are powered with diesel fuel. Although fuel
`economy is important to engine and machinery manufacturers, much effort and resources in recent years
`have been dedicated to meeting exhaust emissions regulations. Engine calibrations have been optimized
`to reduce exhaust pollutants in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emissions tiers.
`This was accomplished through several means, including in-cylinder combustion optimization and
`exhaust gas recirculation, but did not include exhaust aftertreatment (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency Tiers 1 through 3). With the addition of exhaust aftertreatment systems for the Tier 4 interim
`stage, some engines require diesel exhaust fluid to catalyze pollutants in the aftertreatment system
`(e.g., urea), while other aftertreatment systems inject diesel fuel into the exhaust stream to regenerate a
`diesel particulate filter that traps particulate matter.
`Some manufacturers claim as much as 5% greater fuel efficiency for their Tier 4 interim engines than
`that of the Tier 3 models.5,6 Yet when evaluating fuel efficiency, variations in exhaust aftertreatment
`systems should be considered due to trade-offs between consumption of diesel and diesel exhaust fluid.
`With the development of hybrid machines and electric powertrains, some manufacturers are
`implementing electrically powered, variable speed water pumps to reduce coolant flow, with the intent of
`saving energy and fuel when full coolant flow is not needed. An alternate design has been researched and
`demonstrated a 1.7% improvement in fuel economy for a clutched, two-speed water pump (standard drive
`speed and 65% of that speed) with a planet gear drive and 4% improvement in fuel economy for a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 15 of 63 PageID #:
`13258
`
`
`
`clutched on/off water pump when compared to a conventional belt-driven water pump. These designs
`were evaluated on a chassis dynamometer with a test vehicle using the New European Driving Cycle.
`While the effect of these clutched water pump designs is expected to be similar to an electric water pump
`with regard to improved cooling system performance, Shin et al. (2013) argues that inefficiencies in the
`conversion of energy between mechanical and electrical systems would hinder the efficiency of an
`electric water pump.7
`Engines can spend a notable amount of time at idle. A report of on-highway, heavy-duty diesel
`engines cites a near doubling of fuel consumption for an increase from 600/750 rpm to 1,000 rpm.8
`Advanced engine controls are being introduced to reduce fuel consumption by lowering engine idle
`speeds and even shutting the engine off during extended idle periods. Examples of these strategies are
`cited in this report and are found in existing patent applications that show intentions of further
`development in these strategies.9
`Some efficiency gains are the result of changes in machine set up and operation. Proper maintenance
`(e.g., clean filters and correct lubricants), adjustments (e.g., proper tire pressure), and ballasting
`(e.g., appropriate weight distribution for the conditions) affect fuel efficiency. One study suggests that
`maintaining clean fuel and air filters can provide an average fuel savings of slightly more than
`100 gallons annually for a farm tractor.10
`Cooling fans can be a significant parasitic load. Therefore, many modern tractors use variable speed
`or variable pitch fans that continually adjust to only provide the cooling needed and avoid unnecessary
`parasitic loads. However, if the radiator is not clean, the fan is not effective and coolant temperature
`remains high; therefore, this commands a higher fan speed. One cooling fan manufacturer reports, “A
`marginal increase in fan speed of 600 rpm due to a clogged radiator leads to a doubling of necessary fan
`drive power. If the fan drive power rises from 9.5 to 19 kW, the resulting fuel consumption increases to
`about 0.92 gph (3.5 liters per hour).”11 Simply maintaining a clean radiator can have a direct impact on
`fuel consumption.
`2.1.2 Waste Heat Recovery
`Air conditioning systems powered by waste heat from engine exhaust gas and exhaust gas
`recirculation coolers have been studied and are claimed to be capable of reducing fuel use and engine
`idling.12 ClimateWell’s Verdacc heat-driven air conditioning system is advertised to be available for new
`vehicle designs and retrofit for existing vehicles. According to their claims, this technology “makes it
`possible to reduce fuel cost used for cabin comfort by up to 90%.”13
`A patent filing exists regarding a device for recovering energy from an engine’s exhaust stream with
`an electric machine that may consist of a generator or motor/generator that may be part of a turbo charger.
`The recovered energy may be stored for later use or used directly to power the engine or machine
`functions, therefore improving the overall fuel efficiency of the system.14
`Behr has demonstrated a prototype waste heat recovery system that showed up to 5.2% efficiency
`improvement on a test rig. Their system (shown schematically in Figure 10) is conceptually similar to a
`small steam engine that converts thermal energy from engine exhaust into mechanical power that can be
`used directly or stored for later use. Efficiency gains were highest for the steady-state portion of their
`long-haul truck test cycle.15 For agricultural operations, these energy recovery and efficiency gains for
`steady-state operation may lend themselves to applications such as tillage with sustained heavy draft
`loads.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 16 of 63 PageID #:
`13259
`
`
`
`Figure 10. Prototype waste heat recovery system developed by Behr.15
`
`
`
`Powertrain
`2.1.3
`Traditional discrete gear transmissions provide a number of manually selected gears for low-speed,
`high-draft field operations and for high-speed, low-load transport operations. While these transmissions
`provide an adequate range of operation for typical farm activities, their manual operation and sometimes
`large step ratios can force the engine to be operated at suboptimal speeds with respect to efficiency.
`Shift-up-throttle-back operation is known as an effective way to improve fuel efficiency. Procedures
`used by NTTL (based on OECD Code 2) include a reduced engine speed sequence at various drawbar
`loads that demonstrates the benefits of shift-up-throttle-back operation. For a load case of 75% pull at
`maximum drawbar power, shift-up-throttle-back operation typically results in 5 to 15% reduction in fuel
`consumption, while still producing the same drawbar power. For a load case of 50% pull at maximum
`drawbar power, shift-up-throttle-back operation typically results in 15 to 30% reduction in fuel
`consumption, while still producing the same drawbar power.16 Even though the benefit of shift-up-
`throttle-back operation is clear, it can be difficult for an operator to manage the throttle setting and gear
`selection for constantly changing loads during field operations.
`As powertrain designs evolve, additional gears with smaller step ratios have been added to
`transmissions to narrow the required engine operating range. By properly matching the engine and
`powertrain, and with the aid of advanced controls, the engine can operate in a relatively narrow range at
`what is most efficient.
`Many transmissions require pressurized oil for clutch actuation and lubrication. Although the
`minimum required oil pressure may be different for each set of clutches that are actuated and for the
`torque being transmitted at a given time, transmission oil systems often maintain the constant pressure
`required for worst-case loads. A portion of this oil may be directed through a pressure-reducing valve to
`lower the pressure for lubrication. Energy required to pressurize the portion of flow used for the
`low-pressure lubrication circuit may be converted to heat as the pressure is reduced. Additional energy
`may be lost if the cooling fan has to run faster to reject this additional heat from the cooling package.
`Some manufacturers have separated these circuits to avoid pressure drop and associated energy loss for
`the lubrication flow.17 A patent exists for a strategy to regulate transmission charge pressure in order to
`reduce pressure when it is not needed; for example, regulating to high pressure for transport and
`regulating to low pressure for stationary operations when transmission clutches are not engaged.18
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 120-9 Filed 11/17/22 Page 17 of 63 PageID #:
`13260
`
`
`
`John Deere’s 24-speed, dual-clutch transmission offered on their 6R series of tractors is expected to
`provide a “4 percent cut in fuel” or a savings of up to 10 grams of diesel per kWh compared to an
`infinitely variable transmission.19,20 Although manual mode that allows the operator to select the desired
`gear is available, it is the enhanced controls of the automatic mode that leads to efficiency optimization.
`In automatic mode, the machine optimizes efficiency by selecting the appropriate gear to keep the engine
`in an efficient operating range for the desired speed and load.20 John Deere is also implementing their e23
`transmission on their 7R and 8R series tractors with 23 forward and 11 reverse speeds. Much like the
`24-speed transmission described above, the e23 also offers a control feature that manages the
`transmission for best fuel economy by automatically shifting up and throttling back, while maintaining an
`operator-selected ground speed.21
`As more gear ratios are added to the transmission and step ratios become smaller, the opportunity to
`maintain operation at peak engine efficiency can grow. This concept leads to the evolution of a step-less
`transmission with an infinite number of ratios. Infinitely or continuously variable transmissions (CVTs)
`allow the engine to work in a narrow, yet highly efficient, operating range, while still providing an
`adequate full range of speed and torque to the powertrain. A number of CVTs have been marketed and
`manufacturers are claiming notable fuel savings. Although mechanical transmission of power is more
`efficient, it is the continuous variable characteristic of hydraulic and electric powertrains and advanced
`and integrated engine controls that lead to overall improved system efficiency.
`Several manufacturers have developed hydro-mechanical CVTs. A study by Howard has shown that
`for partial load conditions (i.e., loads below 76 to 81% of maximum drawbar power at respective speeds),
`a CVT was more fuel efficient than a discrete gear transmission operated at full throttle; however, it was
`less efficient for loads near maximum power. When a shift-up-throttle- back strategy was used, the gear
`transmission had significantly lower fuel consumption at power levels 37 to 52% of maximum drawbar
`power at respective speeds. Howard’s study indicated that, in general, the CVT was more efficient than
`the full throttle operation of the gear transmission, but the gear transmission with shift-up-throttle-back
`operation was more efficient than CVT in the load and speed range tested. The gear transmission is
`inherently more efficient at transmitting power because it lacks certain parasitic losses that accompany the
`CVT; however, at the system and machine level, the CVT and system level controls can achieve
`efficiency improvements for some load conditions.22
`CNH claims their Puma series tractor can achieve as much as a 25% reduction in fuel use when
`equipped with a CVT transmission and diesel saver auto productivity management. This integrated
`control system maintains an operator-selected working speed at the most efficient operating points by
`automatically adjusting the engine and transmission.23
`Machine controls react to external loads, but cannot anticipate future loads. By the time an engine or
`powertrain system reacts to a load, the event may have passed and a new condition is present that requires
`the machine to operate in a different way for optimum efficiency and performance. In the future, global
`positioning system (GPS) technology may play a role in advanced powertrain controls for improved
`efficiency and performance. A patent for control of vehicular systems based on geo-referenced maps
`gives consideration to the idea that using geo-referenced data to anticipate operating conditions can
`improve efficiency and performance for tractors, combine harvesters, sprayers, and other agricultural
`machinery by preemptively adjusting transmission ratio, differential locks, and other machine settings
`prior to changes in slopes, crop conditions, and soil conditions. This concept also may be applied to
`hybrid systems where, for example, ene