 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Which features of a car do you consider frivolous?
Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the complicated junk they add on just so they can charge more. I'm leaving out the super-frivolous but minor stuff like the infamous warning light for the washer fluid. Power steering power brakes air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) Radios and CD players (expensive and a huge distraction and thus safety risk) power seats and windows V-8 engines (popular only with republicans and homos) 4WD (another homo toy) Skid-free brakes Tinted glass ( no weight but expensive and popular only with hit-and-runners) I'm not including automatic transmissions since they are a big safety feature and not really any heavier than a manual, though more expensive. Anyway, it they chose to, the car-makers could turn out a perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as a screwdriver. Guess I'll take the bait for you guys....:) > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Power steering That would make about any driver a potential murderer (per your normal claim) due to a hindrance in control. > power brakes See above. > air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) That's what, three pounds of hardware? An open window just might invite a carjacker at a red light. > Radios and CD players (expensive and a huge distraction and thus safety > risk) As opposed to the distraction of highway hypnosis? Anyone who would be distracted by a radio or CD player is too easily distracted to be on the road anyway. > power seats and windows On this one I agree; it's too much crap dependent on a good electrical system. Battery goes FUBAR, suck it up. > V-8 engines (popular only with republicans and homos) V-8 is totally unnecessary in today's driving conditions, republican ot not, homo or not. > 4WD (another homo toy) Ever drive in snow or on a poorly maintained dirt road? > Skid-free brakes Merely an attempted delay of a Darwin. In my day we were taught how to HANDLE a skid. > Tinted glass ( no weight but expensive and popular only with > hit-and-runners) You left out drug pushers/abusers in that item. > I'm not including automatic transmissions since they are a big > safety feature and not really any heavier than a manual, though more > expensive. How's automatic a safety feature, other than allowing any idiot to be able to move a vehicle? Manuals tend to have better fuel economy, and will stay downshifted if operating in bad weather. I have not owned a vehicle with automatic tranny in 12 years. > Anyway, it they chose to, the car-makers could turn out a > perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as > a screwdriver. They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the way. Cars are merely one of many items purposely designed and marketed to be replaced every 2-5 years. I'll add a few, also for the benefit of nec, Scott, et. al. Speedometers. People drive at whatever speed they damn well please, and the speedometer is quite a distraction when LEO is spotted. Sandpaper-treaded tires. Given the cost of glue and sandpaper, it just might pay for a full set of decent off-brand tires. Cruise control. See comment regarding speedometers. Back seats. I'm sure many reasons can be recalled. :-) Trunks. AKA thief magnets. GPS. If you can't read a map, how much help is GPS? Getting lost is a certain result of rotten prior planning. Given all that, I might as well trade my Jeep for a motorcycle. RIIIGGGHHHTTT! > They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the > way. No "they" couldn't; not a car as we know it, anyway. A 100 MPG "car" might only carry one person and a briefcase. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >> way. > > No "they" couldn't; not a car as we know it, anyway. A 100 MPG "car" > might only carry one person and a briefcase. Which, a large part of the time, is all you need. How often does a commute require 3 tons of machine? >>>They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>>way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How often does a commute require 3 tons of machine? It's irrelevant - the fact that more people drive SUVs than VW TDIs tells me that people value size far above economy. Until people have more of an incentive to economise, it ain't happenin'. Personally, I think that a Golf or Jetta TDI which gets about 50 MPG and still carries four people is a nice compromise, and I don't understand why it's not screamingly popular. But it's not. Personally, I couldn't drive a one-passenger car; my work often requires me to truck around boxes of equipment; although your point is well taken - not all people have the same needs that I do. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Which, a large part of the time, is all you need. > > How often does a commute require 3 tons of machine? Hell, we might as well revert back to horse and buggy. Howzat sound? >> Which, a large part of the time, is all you need. >> >> How often does a commute require 3 tons of machine? > > Hell, we might as well revert back to horse and buggy. Howzat sound? The leading mind of morontown requalifies for his job yet again. >>Which, a large part of the time, is all you need. >> >>How often does a commute require 3 tons of machine? > > Hell, we might as well revert back to horse and buggy. Howzat sound? You gotta horse that will carry me to work at 80 mph? If so, I'll even skip the buggy since all I need to do is carry my laptop and have some tunes. Have they figured out how to equip horses with air-bags yet? > >>Which, a large part of the time, is all you need. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Have they figured out how to equip horses with air-bags yet? No, but they've long had nosebags. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >>> They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>> way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Which, a large part of the time, is all you need. Drop all those irritating safety standards and you might see such things. There's no way you can make a car light enough to approach 100MPG and still pass the crash tests. The acceleration would bring new meaning to "sloth", too. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > There's no way you can make a car light enough to approach > 100MPG and still pass the crash tests. Simply not true. Graham >>>> They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>>> way. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 100MPG and still pass the crash tests. The acceleration would bring > new meaning to "sloth", too. If you say that there's "no way," you must know of some attempts that have failed. List a few here, if you can: ----------------------------------- >>>>>They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > List a few here, if you can: > ----------------------------------- I think VW had a "concept car" that got 100 km per liter (over 200 MPG) look at it and judge for yourself if you think this would be a viable product in the marketplace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car Personally, if I could get my hands on one, I'd drive it just to be contrary and because I find interesting machinery, well, interesting. As I stated earlier in this (or was it another) thread though, the prevalence of large SUVs and the fact that Volkswagen TDIs are barely selling tells me that fuel economy is NOT anywhere on the list of things current vehicle buyers are looking for in a new vehicle. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>>They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>>>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > nate One car that most people won't drive is nowhere near proof of "no way you can make a car." Look at what has been done with computers, electronics, digital cameras, and phones (a short list) in just the last few years. This can be done with enough effort . >>>>>>>They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>>>>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > One car that most people won't drive is nowhere near proof of "no way you > can make a car." You *can* make a car that will get 100 MPG. Most people won't be willing to accept the tradeoffs made in its design, therefore it isn't commercially viable. No, I'm not saying "no way" I'm saying that a company would have to be suicidally retarded to attempt it... today. > Look at what has been done with computers, electronics, digital cameras, and > phones (a short list) in just the last few years. This can be done with > enough effort . It's got nothing to do with "effort." It's not like you can just lock a bunch of engineers in a warehouse with some CAD workstations and machine tools and tell them that you're not letting them out until they come up with a car that is as roomy and comfortable as a '67 Olds Delta 88, gets 100 MPG, and can be sold for $20K or less. There are real limitations to be overcome that require technological breakthroughs that we don't even have a hint of, yet. I don't doubt that someday we will see high-mileage cars with no tradeoffs. However, trying to force this process along through legislation is simply not possible. You can try to help the process along by funding research into applied physics and chemistry; but there's no guarantee that you will get the results you want in any particular time frame. At the risk of sounding like Aunt Judy/LBMHBF/SADDAM, I have to say there's not a whole lot of will to even move in this direction. It seems, depressingly enough, that most people would rather have an H2 than a reasonably efficient passenger car. nate (ecologically correct, *my* car is 20 years old so even if it doesn't get the same mileage as a new one, I'm saving all that energy used in production...) Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >You *can* make a car that will get 100 MPG. Most people won't be >willing to accept the tradeoffs made in its design, therefore it isn't >commercially viable. No, I'm not saying "no way" I'm saying that a >company would have to be suicidally retarded to attempt it... today. Nor is it going to meet US side impact protection standards. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > phones (a short list) in just the last few years. This can be done with > enough effort . The presumption that all it needs is 'effort' is shockingly naive. Especially for a very mature product such as motor cars. Graham >> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Graham Motor cars are mature, but not dead. Compare a car made 20 years ago to one built today. The emissions, electronics, safety equipment, materials. Huge differences. Motor cars are mostly "mature" because their bodies and engines and skins are still being made, for the most part, the way they have been for 75 years. THAT can and must change for cars to be viable. >Look at what has been done with computers, electronics, digital cameras, and >phones (a short list) in just the last few years. This can be done with >enough effort . The fact that some technologies have advanced quickly does not mean that all of them can. And those technologies aren't hamstrung by the kinds of rules which are placed on cars. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >>>>>They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the > >>>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > nate Just 8.5 HP and a top speed of 75mph? I wonder if it can climb hills, or if it has to travel in the breakdown lane, with all the slow trucks? >> They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >> way. > > No "they" couldn't; not a car as we know it, anyway. A 100 MPG "car" > might only carry one person and a briefcase. The 2009 Prius is aiming for 100MPG. >>> They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>> way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The 2009 Prius is aiming for 100MPG. Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? For one thing, I don't know that it's realistic; not without heavy reliance on regenerative braking and a breakthrough in battery technology. For another, I'm not real impressed with the *current* Prius; by all accounts it's no more efficient in real world driving than a good turbodiesel, and it's quite a bit heavier and more complex. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>> They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, but politics gets in the >>>> way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? The aim is for real MPG. Specifically, they're hoping for 113MPG under ideal conditions. > For one thing, I don't know that it's realistic; not without heavy > reliance on regenerative braking and a breakthrough in battery > technology. The battery technology has vastly improved since they were initially offered and it plays a huge role in the MPG increase. > For another, I'm not real impressed with the *current* > Prius; by all accounts it's no more efficient in real world driving than > a good turbodiesel, and it's quite a bit heavier and more complex. Personally, I loathe the Prius. >> Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? > >The aim is for real MPG. Specifically, they're hoping for 113MPG under >ideal conditions. Press releases can get whatever mileage they want. >> For one thing, I don't know that it's realistic; not without heavy >> reliance on regenerative braking and a breakthrough in battery >> technology. > >The battery technology has vastly improved since they were initially >offered and it plays a huge role in the MPG increase. Battery technology has _not_ significantly improved in some time now. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Battery technology has _not_ significantly improved in some time now. Oh yes it has. Graham >>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Graham Cite, please? As far as I'm aware, current hybrids are still using the same old batteries that have been around for decades. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Cite, please? As far as I'm aware, current hybrids are still using the > same old batteries that have been around for decades. Significant advances are being made in respect of recharge time and peak power density such as.... http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html Graham >>>>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Graham Lithium-Ion technology is not new, nor dense enough to make a significant leap forward in efficiency. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Lithium-Ion technology is not new, nor dense enough to make a > significant leap forward in efficiency. You obviously weren't paying attention in that case. Graham In terms of added cost with no or only perceived added value the most frivoulous item (IMO) is leather seats. I don't like them and with today's fabrics they most certainly are NOT more durable than cloth. They are popular because boomers grew up in a time when they meant the car was really expensive so are still a big status symbol. But, they are uncomfortable when it's hot and also when it's cold. They do not clean easily and in just a few years look like crap. The leasers of the world might not have durability issues with them because they don't keep a vehicle long enough to enjoy the lovely "patina" that develops and which cannot be eliminated. I find it very disappointing that many of the cars I would like to own are not even available with cloth upholstery. In the luxury and near luxury segment you pretty much don't have a choice any more other than the color of the leather. > In terms of added cost with no or only perceived added value the most frivoulous > item (IMO) is leather seats. I don't like them and with today's fabrics they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > even available with cloth upholstery. In the luxury and near luxury segment you > pretty much don't have a choice any more other than the color of the leather. I disagree most heartily! I am a certified pig when it comes to cars and I LOVE leather upholstery because if you clean it a couple times a year and feed it properly it looks new for a long time. Even if it gets a couple wear creases in it it still looks rich and luxurious. Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to make it look like new. Vinyl wears almost as well as leather, but few cars have vinyl upholstery anymore and you wanna talk about hot in the summer... leather isn't that bad if you grew up in a car with vinyl seats! Now in cold weather... yeah the leather is a little chilly but you did pop for the bun warmers, didn't you? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to make it > look like new. Of course you can clean it ! Graham >>Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to make it >>look like new. > > Of course you can clean it ! > > Graham OK, how do you clean cloth upholstery to look EXACTLY like new once someone has spilled, say, coffee on it? this is a trivial exercise in a car with leather upholstery. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to make it > >>look like new. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OK, how do you clean cloth upholstery to look EXACTLY like new once > someone has spilled, say, coffee on it? I've never had to do that but I dare say vacuum shampooing might do the job. > this is a trivial exercise in a car with leather upholstery. How often do you spill coffee in your car ? Graham > > >>Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to make it > > >>look like new. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I've never had to do that but I dare say vacuum shampooing might do the job. Not even close. > > this is a trivial exercise in a car with leather upholstery. > > How often do you spill coffee in your car ? Never, I am too busy driving to be doing such things as drinking coffee. I bet you're one of those retards that talks on his cell phone while he is driving too. >>> Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to >>> make it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > OK, how do you clean cloth upholstery to look EXACTLY like new once > someone has spilled, say, coffee on it? That's a question the person who spilled the coffee in my car needs to answer. ;) Nate Nagel wrote: <groups adjusted> > >>Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to make it > >>look like new. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > this is a trivial exercise in a car with leather upholstery. Which car has leather carpeting? You know, considering gravity, and all that inconvenient bullshit...? ----- - gpsman Why you idiots help the troll contaminate other newsgroups continues to escape my comprehension. > Nate Nagel wrote: <groups adjusted> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - gpsman Personally I don't understand carpeting in cars; I'd be perfectly happy with vinyl floor mats a la my dad's old Chevy pickup or IH Scout. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Personally I don't understand carpeting in cars Sound deadening for one. Graham >>Personally I don't understand carpeting in cars > > Sound deadening for one. > > Graham Which a rubber floor mat with a jute backing (or better yet, asphalt pads) provides quite nicely. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>Personally I don't understand carpeting in cars > > > > Sound deadening for one. > > Which a rubber floor mat with a jute backing (or better yet, asphalt > pads) provides quite nicely. Not nearly as effective. Graham >>>>Personally I don't understand carpeting in cars >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Graham Close enough for government work, and looks a hell of a lot better after the inevitable tracking of mud, snow, etc. over the floor of the car. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>Personally I don't understand carpeting in cars > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Close enough for government work, and looks a hell of a lot better after > the inevitable tracking of mud, snow, etc. over the floor of the car. For utility work, it is of course unbeatable. Graham > I disagree most heartily! I am a certified pig when it comes to cars > and I LOVE leather upholstery because if you clean it a couple times a > year and feed it properly it looks new for a long time. If it is black leather you might be able to clean it a couple times a year an achieve a look that YOU like, but it most certainly is not "like new". > Even if it > gets a couple wear creases in it it still looks rich and luxurious. I don't buy the whole "the patina makes it look better" crap. Nobody makes a car where the leather comes from the factory with that patina and there's darn good reason. Nobody would buy it. > Cloth looks like crap once it gets dirty, there's no cleaning it to > make it look like new. My wife's 2002 Lexus has tan leather. Lots of cracks and dirt in the cracks. I have found nothing that makes them even look clean, much less like new. Meanwhile I can take our steamer cleaner to the cloth in my 94 Stealth and make them look like the day I bought it. I typically do that once a year. > Vinyl wears almost as well as leather, but > few cars have vinyl upholstery anymore and you wanna talk about hot > in the summer... leather isn't that bad if you grew up in a car with > vinyl seats! Leather is better than vinyl, but that's not saying much. > Now in cold weather... yeah the leather is a little chilly but you did > pop for the bun warmers, didn't you? Yep, and don't miss them at all in the car with cloth upholstery that doesn't have the heaters. I admit that leather looks great in the showroom. I just don't think it looks good three years later and I keep my cars a lot longer than that. I don't fault people that like it, but it bothers me that in many cars you have no other option. The leather with the best chance of looking good for the long term is black and wow is that fun during a midwest summer. >>>>>>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Graham Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion batteries are commonplace on the market. They offer energy density appx. 2x that of alkalines or NiCads - nothing to write home about. We need something that's at least an order of magnitude denser to really make a significant difference rather than a refinement of 2 or 3 MPG. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion >batteries are commonplace on the market. They offer energy density >appx. 2x that of alkalines or NiCads - nothing to write home about. We >need something that's at least an order of magnitude denser to really >make a significant difference rather than a refinement of 2 or 3 MPG. A123 is claiming much greater _power_ densities than ordinary LiIon, not much greater _energy_ densities. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you > >posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A123 is claiming much greater _power_ densities than ordinary LiIon, > not much greater _energy_ densities. Also look at *peak* power capability and recharge times. Cell life is also very good. Another very important factor. Extrapolation suggests that several thousand cycles may be possible. Graham >>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Graham If they don't weigh any less than an equivalent, existing battery pack you have gained perhaps some durability but little in the way of efficiency. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you > >>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If they don't weigh any less than an equivalent, existing battery pack > you have gained perhaps some durability but little in the way of efficiency. Efficiency doesn't even come into it. What do you actually mean ? Graham >>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Graham Efficiency of the SYSTEM. Unless you can make the battery pack dramatically lighter for a given amount of energy stored, the car as a whole won't be dramatically more efficient. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you > >>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > dramatically lighter for a given amount of energy stored, the car as a > whole won't be dramatically more efficient. More efficient than...........? what ? Graham >>>>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >>>>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Graham Than what is currently available on the market. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you > >>>>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Than what is currently available on the market. If regenerative braking is 100% effective, aside from slightly increased rolling resistance, overall efficiency is unaffected by battery weight. Graham >>>>>>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >>>>>>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Graham And we know that regenerative braking is *not* 100% effective, and rolling resistance etc. is *not* negligible. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>>>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you > >>>>>>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > And we know that regenerative braking is *not* 100% effective, and > rolling resistance etc. is *not* negligible. The point being nevertheless that battery weight is no longer likely to be a killer any more. Graham >>>>>>>>>>>Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >>>>>>>>>>>posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Graham What are you talking about? Weight is THE enemy. Not only does accelerating that weight use a lot of energy that you can't get back due to inefficiencies in regen braking, the simple fact that the batteries have so much mass requires that the structure of the car be beefed up, causing MORE weight... etc... plus the rolling resistance of all that extra weight is very significant... Plus even if you assume that regen braking is not 100% efficient at some point you run into a limit of how much *power* you can get out of a battery pack because of internal resistance etc... Come up with a battery pack that is functionally identical to those used in today's hybrids but weighs 1/10 as much (and there's no fundamental, physical reason that we know of that that can't be done - we just don't know how to do it... yet.) and you will have legions of engineers and eco-weenies alike simultaneously creaming in their boxers. Oh, yeah, and then hybrids will take a HUGE leap in economy. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> >Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you >> >posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Also look at *peak* power capability and recharge times. But peak power isn't a problem (for automotive applications) with current technologies. The major problem is energy density, something A123s press releases are silent on. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >Paying attention to what? The technologies used by the company you > >> >posted the link to were being discussed over a decade ago, and Li-Ion [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But peak power isn't a problem (for automotive applications) with > current technologies. Oh but it is, especially wrt regenerative braking and the ability to absorb charge fast. > The major problem is energy density, something A123s > press releases are silent on. For a non-hybrid EV yes. For hybrids, the picture's now looking moderately rosy. Graham > >>>>>>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? > >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > need something that's at least an order of magnitude denser to really > make a significant difference rather than a refinement of 2 or 3 MPG. So indeed you weren't paying attention to the points I mentioned. Graham >>>>>>>>>>Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Graham I'm still waiting for you to make a point. Looks like I'm still waiting. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>> Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cite, please? As far as I'm aware, current hybrids are still using the > same old batteries that have been around for decades. Current hybrids may be. The 2009 Prius will not. http://www.valence.com/saphion.asp >>>>>> Is that real MPG or EPA estimated? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Current hybrids may be. The 2009 Prius will not. > http://www.valence.com/saphion.asp From your web site: > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion > technology for the future. So where's the breakthrough? Yet another refinement of existing technology being heralded as something new and different. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety > > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion > > technology for the future. > > So where's the breakthrough? Yet another refinement of existing > technology being heralded as something new and different. And what's wrong with that ? A refinement of lithium ion batteries is just the ticket. Graham >> > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety >> > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graham It's not enough. We need orders of magnitude, not small increments. I'm not saying it's a worthwhile effort, but take off the rose colored glasses for a minute. Current battery technology is NOT enough to make a Camry-equivalent hybrid car get 100 MPG. Just not happening, no matter how you wish it were. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >> > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety > >> > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's not enough. Not enought to make a plug in SUV with 300 mi range for sure. > We need orders of magnitude, not small increments. > I'm not saying it's a worthwhile effort, but take off the rose colored > glasses for a minute. I'm *not* taking a rose coloured view. > Current battery technology is NOT enough to make > a Camry-equivalent hybrid car get 100 MPG. Just not happening, no > matter how you wish it were. How about 70 mpg ? Graham >>>>>The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety >>>>>features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not enought to make a plug in SUV with 300 mi range for sure. And a SUV with 300 mile range is what is going to be required to be taken seriously by consumers. Maybe not plug-in, but SUV or SUV-sized, for sure (sadly) and 300 mile range is marginal at best. 4-500 is typical for gasoline/Diesel powered vehicles. >> We need orders of magnitude, not small increments. >>I'm not saying it's a worthwhile effort, but take off the rose colored >>glasses for a minute. > > I'm *not* taking a rose coloured view. Sure you are. Just because something can be built does not mean it's commercially viable. If it's not commercially viable, you aren't going to be able to buy it, no matter how badly you want it. >>Current battery technology is NOT enough to make >>a Camry-equivalent hybrid car get 100 MPG. Just not happening, no >>matter how you wish it were. > > How about 70 mpg ? I'll believe it when I see it. Current technology does not seem to be able to make that happen, cool as it would be. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>> > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety >>> > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a Camry-equivalent hybrid car get 100 MPG. Just not happening, no > matter how you wish it were. http://www.valence.com/hev.asp "A concept PHEV powered by Valence's U-Charge® Power Systems was demonstrated in spring 2005 in Europe and the U.S. Based on a 2004 Toyota Prius, the PHEV, modified by EnergyCS, has a fuel efficiency that can average up to 150 miles per gallon for a daily commute of 50-60 miles per day." >>>> > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety >>>> > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > can average up to 150 miles per gallon for a daily commute of 50-60 > miles per day." That is a "PHEV" which apparently stands for "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle." What's its efficiency if you do not plug it in? This is essentially like saying "I got 1000 miles on this tank of gas and I only topped it up every evening." There's still power being used; it just comes from your local power plant rather than your local gas station. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>> > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety >>>>> > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > essentially like saying "I got 1000 miles on this tank of gas and I only > topped it up every evening." No it isn't. > There's still power being used; it just > comes from your local power plant rather than your local gas station. And? We are talking MPG, aren't we? Of course power is being used. Motion tends to require it. >>>>>> > The advantages of traditional Lithium-ion coupled with the safety >>>>>> > features of phosphates, make Saphion® technology the Lithium-ion [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > No it isn't. It's EXACTLY the same thing. If you're plugging in a hybrid every evening to top up the batteries, that's exactly the same as running the engine to top up the batteries. Only difference is that the fossil fuels are being burned at the power plant, not under your hood. >> There's still power being used; it just comes from your local power >> plant rather than your local gas station. > > And? We are talking MPG, aren't we? Of course power is being used. > Motion tends to require it. Exactly. The trick is to reduce the power input required to the vehicle. The vehicle you posted a link to does not appear to do that. When you account for the power used to charge the batteries at night, you are no longer getting those impressive MPG figures. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >http://www.valence.com/hev.asp >"A concept PHEV powered by Valence's U-Charge® Power Systems was >demonstrated in spring 2005 in Europe and the U.S. Based on a 2004 >Toyota Prius, the PHEV, modified by EnergyCS, has a fuel efficiency that >can average up to 150 miles per gallon for a daily commute of 50-60 >miles per day." Starting with a full battery and ending with an empty one is cheating. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>http://www.valence.com/hev.asp >>"A concept PHEV powered by Valence's U-Charge® Power Systems was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Starting with a full battery and ending with an empty one is cheating. Yes and no. If it did that, it could be recharged by the power grid, and shift the energy burden from imported oil to domestic coal, a good thing. And, if we'd come to our senses, we could shift it to domestic Tranium and Thorium of which the world has a 24,000 year supply at current oil usage rates. That'd be a good thing in all respects. Dave Head > >http://www.valence.com/hev.asp > >"A concept PHEV powered by Valence's U-Charge® Power Systems was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Starting with a full battery and ending with an empty one is cheating. Does it say that ? Graham DON'T FORGET TO TRIM THE GROUP DISTRIBUTION [groups trimmed to r.a.d] > They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, Even motorcycles don't get 100 mpg. Why do you think that a car would be capable of getting that kind of mileage? > DON'T FORGET TO TRIM THE GROUP DISTRIBUTION > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Even motorcycles don't get 100 mpg. Why do you think that a car would > be capable of getting that kind of mileage? Ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics, as well as ignorance of the maximum theoretical efficiencies for various ICE cycles (Otto, Diesel, Stirling, etc.) Either that, or that was a jab at SADDAM that went right over my head. In any case, this is a definite scab of mine that gets picked at every now and then, being an engineer by degree if not by practice, and having lots of granola-munching hippie type friends. It gets tiresome having to explain to them for the 40th time that no, there is no vast conspiracy, and the Fish carburetor isn't some miraculous technology that will instantly double your fuel mileage and truth be told, 80s era fuel injection likely is much better. *sigh* OK, rant off, I'm going to get another cup of coffee and then go back to rewiring my laundry room. (fixing some previous owner "features" that I didn't like...) nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > to explain to them for the 40th time that no, there is no vast > conspiracy, and the Fish carburetor isn't some miraculous technology > that will instantly double your fuel mileage and truth be told, 80s era > fuel injection likely is much better. It all gets confused. There have been 80, 100, whatever mpg 'cars'. That is if you consider something that looks like and weighs less than a incomfortable recumbent bicycle with a plastic dome over it a 'car'. Then throw in a driving environment with no time constraints and no need to ever use the brakes. I believe there were other attempts at legit high milage carburators that probably fed the legends, but they simply didn't work and that's why they never saw the light of day. They didn't work. The automakers and the oil companies never got along. If the automakers could cut off the oil companies without degrading their products and/or sales they would do it in a heartbeat. They have played with and paid for licenses for every promising technology that has come down the pipe from turbines to wankels to orbitals. Fuel economy has been an avertised feature of at least some models going back at least to the 1950s. > > They could also make a car that gets 100 mpg, > > Even motorcycles don't get 100 mpg. Why do you think that a car would > be capable of getting that kind of mileage? Some former small Peugeot diesels have been known to achieve 100mpg ( UK gallon - 80 US mpg ) on long runs. This more recent model of theirs is a bit larger and is a diesel hybrid and gets 69 US mpg. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeot_cit.html Note that the diesel engined series hybrids have no less performance than gasoline engined versions. Graham > DON'T FORGET TO TRIM THE GROUP DISTRIBUTION > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Even motorcycles don't get 100 mpg. Why do you think that a car would > be capable of getting that kind of mileage? Granted, a car getting 100 mpg would bear no resemblance to those in use today. For years I have heard reports (though they may be from conspiracy theorists) of engineering students designing cars getting 100-150 mpg only to get the designs confiscated under the excuse "it will ruin competition." Can't remember what mileage a moped gets, but at 25 mph top speed it's impractical. Cars resembling those of today with all the doo-dads and Fed-required safety features likely have a practical upper limit of 55 mpg. The Japs were making 50-mpg cars in the '70s; those cars haven't shown improvement any more than the US cars. > How's automatic a safety feature, other than allowing any idiot to be > able to move a vehicle? Manuals tend to have better fuel economy, and > will stay downshifted if operating in bad weather. The mileage edge is pretty slight nowadays and what's with the stay downshifted argument?. You can put an AT in first gear and it will stay there. > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > power brakes Who needs to steer or brake their car? > air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) As you must know by now, at speed that uses more power. > Radios and CD players (expensive and a huge distraction and thus safety > risk) What if you fall asleep at the wheel listening to Asleep At The Wheel? > power seats and windows Or airbags, who needs to survive the crash?! > V-8 engines (popular only with republicans and homos) > > 4WD (another homo toy) Maybe it's also used to drive more safely in slippery conditions. > Skid-free brakes This is safety equipment, you nut. > Tinted glass ( no weight but expensive and popular only with > hit-and-runners) > > I'm not including automatic transmissions since they are a big > safety feature and not really any heavier than a manual, though more > expensive. How are they safer? > Anyway, it they chose to, the car-makers could turn out a > perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as > a screwdriver. You have a screw loose, so they should give you a screw driver. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > You have a screw loose, so they should give you a screw driver.\ ***** I'd eliminate pink fuzzy dice. SENTENTIOUS QUOTES "There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order; or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." --Ronald Reagan "Look at 'em laughing, and we're gonna tax the crap out of 'em....." (paraphrase) --Walter "Fritz" Mondale "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women." --Conan the Barbarian "Free people allowed to make free choices in free markets will satisfy their needs (and society's) far better than governments can."--Allan Sloan "Democrat motto: The solution to all our problems is in your wallet." --Captain Compassion "Capitalism allows the individual other options beyond that of being poor." --Captain Compassion Taxation is a tool of Socialism that magically transforms my money to our money. -- Captain Compassion Mankind is the only creature on the face of the earth vain enough to feel that others of his species owe him a living. -- Captain Compassion "As Americans, we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." -- Dave Barry Hoo-Waw!! Right is right...and the Left is wrong. Ain't the truth beautiful!! Cheers, Dennis, Proud Postmodern Conservative Capitalist, Finest Kind Black Irish, English > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Power steering A car without power steering would be harder to park. Steering does get easier at highway speeds. > power brakes LOL... ever tried to stop when your engine died and the car is still moving?? Not fun! > air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) Try that in AZ,TX,CA, and FL > Radios and CD players (expensive and a huge distraction and thus safety > risk) Then again, looking down at the instrument panel takes your eyes of the road just long enough for Bammby to jump in front of your car. > power seats and windows I have to agree with you on this... PS/PW are not (!) needed they just add un-needed weight. > V-8 engines (popular only with republicans and homos) Only in work trucks,vans,SUV's and sport cars. > 4WD (another homo toy) Again only in work trucks,vans and SUV's > Skid-free brakes You mean ABS?? or Skid control?? both needed > Tinted glass ( no weight but expensive and popular only with > hit-and-runners) Reppels UV rays and keeps the cab cooler > I'm not including automatic transmissions since they are a big > safety feature and not really any heavier than a manual, lol do you even know how to drive a stick?? (LOL no pun untended El Fagio) >though more expensive. Anyway, it they chose to, the car-makers could turn out a > perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as a screwdriver. Not true.. screwdrivers do not have mechanical parts that can fail... SignaturePeople that speed don't kill People. Idiot sloths kill people. "flamablenuts" <noone@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) > >Try that in AZ,TX,CA, and FL Actually, believe it or not, there are people in Tucson who drive around at noon on a 107-degree July day with their car windows rolled down. I guess if you live in the desert long enough, you get used to the heat. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > moving?? > Not fun! As i mentioned in the OP, the cars should be under 2500 pounds. You don't need PB or PS then. And as you mentioned, if the engine dies then cars equipped with ps and pb and very tough to steer and stop. . In article <1168793580.644016.64880@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > > > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cars equipped with ps and pb and very tough to steer and stop. > . Which (naturally, because you brought it up) is something almost never happens anymore... Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) Get help. Your death by car obsession is pathetic and psychotic. > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as > a screwdriver. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, a connisseur of gay kid porn and lover of 10 year old boys spewed forth this crap in rec.autos.driving: << ECP removed >> > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > power brakes Ever tried driving a car with out these? Didn't think so. > air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) When you in Colorado are willing to give up your heater in the winter (buy a sweater, you cheapskate)..... > Radios and CD players (expensive and a huge distraction and thus safety > risk) Ever hear fo highway hypnosis, you moron? Radios prevent this. > power seats and windows You first. > V-8 engines (popular only with republicans and homos) > > 4WD (another homo toy) But then how would they tow your trailer after they kick your faggot a.s out of another trailer park, you trash? > Skid-free brakes Here's to hoping that another sloth like yourself sends you sliding into a telephone pole. > Tinted glass ( no weight but expensive and popular only with > hit-and-runners) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as > a screwdriver. Because they would never leave the dealer lots. Grow a clue, luser: we the MAJORITY don't want econo boxes and we won't buy them. Now who does your pea brain think that the car makers are listening to??? And here's some stupid features we could get rid of on cars and make the roads infinitely safer the moment they are removed: Sand paper threaded tires, inoperative emergency brakes and cheapie flashlights for reading instrument clusters with birned out lights. All things YOU have admitted to having on *your* POS, you killer. SignatureAunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*: "Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one instance where it may really have been no ones fault except the idiot who built the bridge." --"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt Msg ID: 1131599968.267321.318380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com > Just imagine how cheap and light - and thus economical - cars would be > if the industry made only sub-2500 pound cars and left off all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Power steering *I* think that's frivolous, but some smaller people really appreciate it. It saves smaller drivers from getting fatigued, and that's a Good Thing. > power brakes See above. Also with the widespread use of disc brakes some cars now pretty much require power brakes, otherwise the brake pedal would have to have so much "stroke" to keep effort at a reasonable level that the master cylinder could bottom out under some circumstances. > air conditioner (roll down the windows, you idiot) Obviously you have never lived anywhere where it gets really hot or humid. > Radios and CD players (expensive and a huge distraction and thus safety > risk) Sure they're extraneous, but they're awful nice to have. IF nothing else for the traffic reports! > power seats and windows Power seats agree, but power windowns are nice, you can roll up/down all windows without stopping the car. Plus I've been told that the hardware for power windows actually is lighter than that for manual and that is why some high-end sports cars come with power windows only. > V-8 engines (popular only with republicans and homos) and enthusiasts everywhere who appreciate Hand of God(tm) torque. > 4WD (another homo toy) Only a toy if you don't live out in the country. When I was a kid, my parents lived in an area where if you didn't have 4WD you might not eat for a week or so at a time. > Skid-free brakes now *I* personally don't like these, but for the average (poor) driver they are a godsend. I think they should remain optional. > Tinted glass ( no weight but expensive and popular only with > hit-and-runners) WTF? Driver comfort is very important (see power steering above) you really want to outlaw something that reduces eye strain and also helps keep the passenger compartment cool? If it were so dangerous why hasn't it been outlawed in the 60 years or so since it's been introduced? > I'm not including automatic transmissions since they are a big > safety feature I'd love to see your reasoning behind this.... no I wouldn't. never mind. > and not really any heavier than a manual, wrong > though more > expensive. Anyway, it they chose to, the car-makers could turn out a > perfectly functional car for $10,000 and it would be as trouble-free as > a screwdriver. car makers make what sells. put your money where your mouth is and buy a car exactly like you want and get all your friends to do so as well. oh, wait, you don't have any |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message