Why hasn't anyone come up with a better way to start vehicles?

Every vehicle with an internal combustion engine contains a big, heavy, electrochemical battery. Its only purpose is to turn the crankshaft for a few seconds in order to start the engine. After the engine is started the battery is not needed for the rest of the trip.

If the battery could somehow be eliminated, it would surely improve gas mileage. And it would eliminate the environmental impact of manufacturing and disposing the batteries.

So why hasn’t someone come up with a different mechanism for starting a car that is much smaller and lighter? Or perhaps using external starters?

External starter? Talk about being impractical.

Besides, a battery is used for more than just starting. It powers the entire electrical system. Sure, the system could be powered from the generator/alternator, but only when the engine is running. Not a good thing.

All of the electrical energy ultimately comes from the alternator. And while I understand the design of most electrical systems require the presence of a battery in order regulate the voltage, this doesn’t *have *to be the case; an alternator-based system *could *be designed where the battery is not needed.

You still need some storage of energy to start the engine.
You can’t just light a match and throw into the crankcase.
It takes a lot on impetus to get all of those parts to move.

I’m assuming by your question that you haven’t been in an automobile since about 1925.
Yes, you could hand-crank your Model T back in the day, but cars have changed since then.
Electric lighting, blower motor for heat and air conditioning, fuel pumps, computers, ignition, radios, and more all require electricity. Where do you suggest that comes from?

If you only want to replace the starter, air starters exist on larger diesel and turbine engines, but you won’t save any weight - you’ll just add complexity. And your electrical needs still exist.

After a hundred years, the ICE and its components and usage are just about as efficient as we can make them.

With the exception of the first time you start a car after installing a new battery, all of the vehicle’s electrical energy comes from the alternator, not the battery.

A lot of World War 2 vintage airplanes used the Coffman starter system, which basically used a blank shotgun shell to turn the engine over. There were also compressed-air based starter systems, some of which could be recharged by the engine, but that’s not really any lighter than a modern battery and starter.

If we as a society were really serious about eliminating the electric starter, we could abolish the automatic transmission and make all parking spaces have ramps so you could just roll-start.

I don’t think so. ALL of the electrical energy comes from the battery. The alternator charges it. If you want to think of it another way, the battery smooths out the stop and start of the alternator. Who would want everything to turn off when the engine did? In modern cars, you can’t open a window or unlock doors without electricity.

In the overall scheme of things, a small electric starter and relatively (compared with the gross weight) small battery provides a pretty good method of cranking the engine.

the battery needs to be big and heavy because lead-acid batteries are pretty much the only practical solution to supplying the huge amount of current the starter needs. What else would you suggest? Compressed air systems (either the air motors used on heavy trucks or an air injection manifold) would be rather complex and failure prone; a leak in the air line and you ain’t starting. Plus it would cost a lot more than a lead-acid battery and DC motor.

second, the battery is there for more than just starting. If the power draw exceeds what the alternator can supply, the battery acts as a “reserve.” If the alternator or charging circuit fails, the battery can keep the car running for hopefully long enough to get you somewhere. Modern cars even implement “load shedding” logic in their electronics to put non-critical modules to sleep if the supply voltage starts to drop. Also, the alternator is a three-phase AC generator with full-wave rectifiers; the battery acts as a filter to smooth out any “ripple” on the alternator’s output.

Now, some hybrids (notably the ones using the Toyota and Ford parallel systems) use the motor/generator in the transaxle powered by the hybrid propulsion battery to spin up the engine, and don’t use a separate starter motor. However the electronics are all still 12 volt so they still have a conventional battery and alternator.

I don’t understand questions like this. The answer is always the same: no one has come up with a “better way” because there are only so many ways to do it and the battery is the best of all available options.

In terms of what it has to do - repeatedly store and provide a large amount of energy - a battery is the smallest, simplest, most hassle-free, and lightest solution available. If this is not obvious, just consider the other options.

There is no getting around the need for a significant amount of energy to start the engine turning. You need to either carry this energy with the car, or obtain it from an external source. An external source is no good because you want car to be able to be started independently, without requiring some kind of network of “starting stations”.

There are two choices for carrying the energy in the car: some kind of fuel-based starter system, or a rechargeable system. The Coffman starter linked earlier is fuel-based, using shotgun shells with gunpowder as the fuel. I have a hard time believing this thing is any lighter than a starter and battery.

In any case, any conventional fuel-based system like the Coffman starter needs to be periodically replenished - you would have to choose between carrying a large number of “starts” with you, thus wasting weight, or replenishing the supply often, thus wasting time. I suppose you could use a RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator), but these are relatively low-powered, produce output constantly (so most of it would be wasted), and no one wants to contaminate the city block with nuclear materials whenever there is a serious accident. And of course, you could carry a liquid fuel, but liquid fuels generally require some kind of an engine to extract energy from them, and the engine must be started. Enough said.

So, a rechargeable system is the best. There are only a few ways to build such a system - mechanical storage, like a spring or compressed air tank, or electrical storage, like a battery. A spring is inefficient in storing energy for a given amount of mass, and a compressed air tank and required compressor, etc. are heavy as well.

So, we are left with a battery.

A battery is easily rechargeable and relatively durable, and relatively light. Using a battery allows the car to be started anytime, anywhere, without requiring any external infrastructure.

Batteries have the additional advantage of producing electricity, which is central to the operation of pretty much all systems on a car these days, including the engine computers, power steering, transmission, etc. Since alternators are mechanical devices and not hugely reliable, it is desirable to not have the entire car simply shut off if the alternator stops working. Additionally, a battery allows electrical systems to continue operating at low power even while the car is turned off. This enables keyless entry systems, power door locks, alarm systems, etc. For these reasons, even a car using an alternative starting system would still probably have a battery anyway.

Of course, people are working on making batteries smaller and lighter. I expect to see Lithium-Ion automotive batteries available for general use in a few years. They are already available for airplanes, where weight is a big deal, but the cost is still prohibitively expensive for cars.

Other electrical needs aside, an electric starter is not required and is not used on all combustion engines. Diesel engines routinely use air starters in cold climates where a battery may become useless. An air tank stores air for subsequent starts and a hand pump can be used to charge the system. It’s not uncommon to build a fire under the crankcase while pumping up the tank. I imagine that a gas engine would turn over much easier than a diesel, but current would still be needed to power the electrical system.

Why has nobody invented a better wheel?

And it isn’t just “these days” that electricity is needed for various auxiliary systems anyway. Cars started sprouting various electric conveniences very early on, some of which you would want to have operable with the engine off. Electric headlights, for instance, because they were obviously preferable to hanging kerosene lanterns on the front of the car. Steamers such as the Doble had electric headlights. I don’t know how they operated, but I would not be at all surprised if the Doble had a generator which charged up a battery, even though you didn’t need an electric motor to start a steam engine.

You have it backwards. ALL of the electrical energy ultimately comes from the alternator. The battery is basically used as a big capacitor.

Just adding, even when the engine is running the alternator does not necessarily cover the energy needs of the car. Sitting at traffic lights with the headlights on will commonly result in a net current draw from the battery. It would be possible to add a larger alternator and/or tweak the engine idle to ensure that the maximum energy needs were covered, even at idle, but this also adds expense and lowers the overall efficiency of the car (aka worse fuel economy.) So we are back to the design loop where the alternatives are still more expensive and less able to meet the requirements.

It is also worth noting that it isn’t just cars. Light aircraft are no different. They too crank the engine with a starter motor and power the aircraft systems via a storage battery. When the weight of a lead acid battery becomes an issue they will switch to other chemistry, but another important aspect of the lead acid battery is its inherent robustness. Batteries like nickel cadmium require significant additional care in use to avoid overheating, and lithium batteries, whilst very light, have enough safety issues to make an aircraft engineer lay awake at night. Lead acid batteries require willful neglect to kill.

No, I have it forwards. The battery feeds all electrical stuff. It, in turn, is kept charged by the alternator. A capacitor is a poor analogy; a regulator might be a better one. Turn the alternator off, the car still runs.

Some cars operate without a charger, on battery only. The electrical system is called “total loss” where every ounce of weight counts (special competitions). JetSkis can do this, so can economy runs.

this is rarely an issue with modern cars. it was true back in the day when cars had DC generators, but even a lowly Fiesta’s alternator can put out 81 amps at idle. I really doubt that any automaker in this day and age would spec an alternator that couldn’t power all of the car’s systems at idle.

Now, in the case of, say, police vehicles which have a lot of upfitter-installed equipment, this can still be a problem.

conversely, disconnect the battery, the car still runs. A fully charged six-cell lead-acid battery has a voltage of 12.6-12.7 volts. The car’s alternator will output 13.8-14.2 volts. As long as the demand on the electrical system does not drag the voltage down to 12.7 volts or lower, all of the power is being provided by the alternator (which is powered by the engine.)

For a data point, Autozone says the starter and battery for my 2,500 lb car (old Saturn, nothing fancy) weigh less than 40 lbs together (6lbs and 33 lbs, respectively). Assuming we could magically eliminate their weight completely that’s a massive 1.5% savings.

A nitpick- air-powered starters, ramps, or hand cranks won’t work on cars with alternators. For starting, a charge from somewhere has to be there to energize the alternator since it has no permanent magnets. You either have to use a battery or a generator instead of an alternator.

DO NOT DO THIS.
Among other things the battery does is it acts as an electrical shock absorber
in the electrical system.
Disconnect the battery on a running engine and the system voltage can spike and might spike as high as 100V. This can take out electronic control units.
As far as where the electrical energy for the car comes from consider these two facts

  1. Alternators don’t alternate until they are turning. Alternators don’t turn till the engine is running. You need the battery for that.
  2. (and this one for the win) Alternators need a field current to excite them to get them to start generating electricity. If you don’t put some electricity into the alternator you just have a large heavy spinny thing on the front of the engine.

I recall reading of a starting concept that consisted of a small (& highly geared) motor that would slowly (i.e. over several seconds) crank the engine to bring one cylinder on compression; this cylinder would then be injected with fuel and the plug fired, starting the engine.

You still need a battery and starter motor, but both could be substantially smaller.
Anyone know if this is being pursued?