 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 2005Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
The current edition of "Car and Driver" (magazine) has an interesting article about the dark side of the hybrids on page 26. The date on the cover is September 2005. If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle, I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article.  SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. Can you provide a summary of the articles' main points? > The current edition of "Car and Driver" (magazine) has an > interesting article about the dark side of the hybrids on page 26. > The date on the cover is September 2005. > > If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle, > I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. See his FIRST post in alt.autos.honda (Jul 29 or 30, I think) and then all the responses about the well executed recycling that IS being done on electric/hybrid batteries! > Can you provide a summary of the articles' main points? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle, >> I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. > See his FIRST post in alt.autos.honda (Jul 29 or 30, I think) and then all > the responses about the well executed recycling that IS being done on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle, > >> I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. Great point. I did not mean to start a thread about batteries but I did. My goal was to make the subscribers aware of the article. That's why I reposted and left out the comment about batteries. I like Hybrid vehicles--especially the new Accord Hybrid but the cost of it is too much for me to pay. I was not aware of the dark side of hybrid vehicles until I read the article. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. Could also read it at the library or maybe even online. >> I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. > > Could also read it at the library or maybe even online. http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=9489&page_number=1 Hardly any bias evident there! lol.... He drives an F-350 dually and a H2. >http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=9489&page_numb >er=1 > >Hardly any bias evident there! lol.... > >He drives an F-350 dually and a H2. Can't stand Yates. Arrogant, pompous twit. YMMV. And as an aside, it was Tom Friedman, not Fareed Zakaria. >>http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=9489&page_numb >>er=1 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can't stand Yates. Arrogant, pompous twit. YMMV. Yep. Good writer though. Loved Cannonball. > And as an aside, it was Tom Friedman, not Fareed Zakaria. > Can't stand Yates. Arrogant, pompous twit. YMMV. > And as an aside, it was Tom Friedman, not Fareed Zakaria. It was Fareed. http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/030705.html Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >It was Fareed. >http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/030705.html I stand corrected. Friedman also wrote a column on this http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17friedman. html? ex=1276660800&en=da9affdfc40683db&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc= rss But it looks like Zakaria's was first. > And as an aside, it was Tom Friedman, not Fareed Zakaria. Hmmm. Everybody's right. Tom Friedman, "As Toyota Goes" < http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17friedman.html?ex=1276660800&en=da9af fdfc40683db&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss > Fareed Zakaria, " Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon " http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/030705.html and they are both acknowledge the work by Gal Luft as their source. http://www.setamericafree.org/news.htm Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> And as an aside, it was Tom Friedman, not Fareed Zakaria. > >Hmmm. Everybody's right. Yup. And you had a good summary of Yates' biased spin (to be honest, Friedman and Zakaria have their own biases). Yates' plays the crochety, libertarian boor. F & Z in their liberal bent do not completely disclose the other primary energy sources (including fossil fuel) consumed in their "500 mpg" soundbite. Though one may argue that at least the majority of those other energy sources do not necessarily have to be imported. > Yup. And you had a good summary of Yates' biased spin (to be I was thinking about it later, and I thought I would just list the words that would not be in a balanced article. They are purely flame bait. dark side It's in a headline, so attention-grabbing is okay. voila palpitate greenies Rube Goldberg flunkies flinty-eyed discover perpetual motion and cure the common cold one of the most respected [unnamed] high-powered engineering executives know-it-alls gasbags elitist Some of these are perfectly good words, but they are an inordinantly high percentage of the article. Nothing new is said, there is just some swagger and bravado attached so that the arguments carry more weight. Where was Brock when Car and Driver did their review of the Escape? http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=8777 His full page article in the December 2004 edition (as opposed to the Hybrid few paragraphs), has "liberal bed-wetters" in the second paragraph. Oh, wait! There is a statement that is helpful in relation to his bias against hybrids. "we remain devoted to a sybaritic celebration of essentially useless, antisocial, high-speed, gas,-guzzling, overpowered automobiles." Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>Yup. And you had a good summary of Yates' biased spin (to be > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > essentially useless, antisocial, high-speed, gas,-guzzling, overpowered > automobiles." Yates is waaaaay past his "Use by" date. ;) Are we to conclude Yates is a conservative bed wetter? > (to be honest, Friedman and Zakaria have their own biases). F & Z in > their liberal bent do not completely disclose the other primary energy > sources (including fossil fuel) consumed in their "500 mpg" soundbite. > Though one may argue that at least the majority of those other energy > sources do not necessarily have to be imported. I think that the lack of importation is the most important point for Fareed. I admit that I had never read one of his columns, although I do look forward to his visits to "The Daily Show". I think he presents a good view of the world stage. The only reason for "Fareed Zakaria, Editor, Newsweek International" to speak about the 500mpg car would be in relation to its effect on US imports. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>>I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He drives an F-350 dually and a H2. "While the greenies and their flunkies in the so-called major media palpitate over the future of the hybrid..." I got this far. Brock Yates is past his shelf life. >>>> I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I got this far. Brock Yates is past his shelf life. >> Hardly any bias evident there! lol.... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I got this far. Brock Yates is past his shelf life. what ya expect from a rich, fat, old, alcoholic white man? dudes got a nose like WC fields... >>> Hardly any bias evident there! lol.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > what ya expect from a rich, fat, old, alcoholic white man? About what the article said. ;) > dudes got a nose like WC fields... Oy! You forgot to mention, he's also a lawyer. I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric. >I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go > to hydrogen systems, but never electric. That happens to internal combustions engines as well, just in case you haven't noticed. >>I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - no power and creating massive backups.<< Yessiree. YOU saw one die, so we should all stay away from them. No other kind of car has ever died in the middle of traffic, with no power and creating massive backups...just hybrids. Thanks for today's Usenet entertainment. >I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go > to hydrogen systems, but never electric. Yeah, cause that never happens to regular cars... > I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go > to hydrogen systems, but never electric. hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. > hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. It's being tried. Check out the Honda FCX. http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/ Not sure Q should use these for 007, though... ;-)) >> hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. > > It's being tried. Check out the Honda FCX. > http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/ > > Not sure Q should use these for 007, though... ;-)) but abe, have you ever seen a scuba tank explode? those things have way less pressure than that necessary to store even a trivial quantity of hydrogen. gasoline fuel cell, absolutely. hydrogen fuel cell? no chance. read some of the archives for sci.materials. oh, and capacitors don't have anywhere near the storage capacity of batteries. it really amazes me the political lengths car companies have to go to to placate the many manifestations of technological ignorance. or the shameless idiots that exploit that ignorance by begging research funds for what they know to be fundamentally flawed. > but abe, have you ever seen a scuba tank explode? Nope. > gasoline fuel cell, absolutely. hydrogen fuel cell? no chance. All I said was it's being tried, jim. The RAND Corporation thought in 1954 that home computers of 2004 would fit within a single room. I don't have the source of the picture/caption I have (probably from something like Popular Science), but the sucker is complete with a large steering wheel (yes, a steering wheel), lots of analog gauges covering a whole wall (yes, gauges!), and a maybe 18" teletype tractor feed printer. It's also got a large TV mounted high on a wall. With the Fortran language, it was expected to be easy to use. Hah hah. Point is that we don't get anywhere unless we try stuff, however far-fetched and unworkable it may seem to some. Fact is that Honda is trying the fuel cell in consumer vehicles. Whether it will ultimately be safe enough for mass use, I dunno, but they're trying it with hydrogen and I'll be interested to see where it goes. I don't think that the project would have gotten as far as it has if the safety issues were insurmountable. >> but abe, have you ever seen a scuba tank explode? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > project would have gotten as far as it has if the safety issues were > insurmountable. /please/ read sci.materials abe. pretty please? > /please/ read sci.materials abe. pretty please? Look, jim, Uncle Al won't convince me that it's unworkable (though I gotta say his "shitanium" comment in anotehr thread had me in stitches). So there are technical challenges to surmount? So it's currently an expensive proposition? So it may not be the most efficient thing around? Does that make it impossible? No. I'm not much invested in the issue, frankly. Haven't explored the Honda FCX stuff either, actually, just ran across it today for the first time. I'm not saying it's safe, and am quite willing to accept that there are dangers. I do intend to keep an open mind about it. One of these decades we're gonna run out of oil (or the surface of the earth will sink into the void we've left behind by pumping it all out <g>), and we need to pursue alteratives. >> /please/ read sci.materials abe. pretty please? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expensive proposition? So it may not be the most efficient thing around? > Does that make it impossible? No. no, it's not impossible, but neither is actively reducing the mercury content of the oceans or mining manganese from the moon. it's just wildly dangerous and spectacularly uneconomic. sounds great politically though, that /that's/ what the whole hydrogen car hoopla is all about. and the extraction of "research funds" of course. > I'm not much invested in the issue, frankly. Haven't explored the Honda > FCX stuff either, actually, just ran across it today for the first time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the void we've left behind by pumping it all out <g>), and we need to > pursue alteratives. > no, it's not impossible, but neither is actively reducing the mercury > content of the oceans or mining manganese from the moon. it's just > wildly dangerous and spectacularly uneconomic. sounds great politically > though, that /that's/ what the whole hydrogen car hoopla is all about. > and the extraction of "research funds" of course. Maybe so. Out of curiosity, what would be your suggestion for an alternative power source for consumer vehicles? >> no, it's not impossible, but neither is actively reducing the mercury >> content of the oceans or mining manganese from the moon. it's just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe so. Out of curiosity, what would be your suggestion for an > alternative power source for consumer vehicles? it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for local commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car. i'd also consider fuel cells. better conversion efficiency, and the fuel supply system is already in place. imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban, suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more efficient vehicles, strongly discourage the use of ridiculous gas guzzlers, and actually deploy known technology that increases thermodynamic efficiency. and all the folk that drive huge vehicles because they "need" them should go to europe for a few minutes to get some perspective. in europe, vehicles are smaller, substantially more efficient and do exactly the same job as the giant stuff we have here. tradesmen still haul their tools & supplies without gigantic trucks. soccer moms still drive their kids around without the gigantic suburban. delivery trucks still carry the same payload with half the engine size. last time i looked, the average american household consumed /double/ the energy per unit compared with the next highest consumer country. that's not because we're an impoverished techno-desert that doesn't know any better, it's because we just don't put this stuff on the agenda. if we got our act together, we'd be able to design, build & sell this stuff around the globe and make a huge fortune, but hey. Jim, overall you make some good points. And I do agree that we should be working on the 10-20-30% improvements that can be had by conservation, downsizing, hybridizing, etc. But that still puts out a lot of CO2 and consumes lots of gasoline. So I think it slows down the looming crisis (if you subscribe to the evidence), but doesn't halt them. >i'd also consider fuel cells. better conversion efficiency, and the >fuel supply system is already in place. Gasoline-based fuel cell research has been all-but abandoned. I could go into the issues, but they are numerous. Hydrogen fuel cells are what all the auto companies are spending their R&D effort on, to the tune of over $1B. Note that is corporate money, not tax payer (though the DOE budget over the next 5 years is slated at a combined $1.7B or so). Direct methanol may have small portable application. Large stationary may be natural gas based. Link: http://www.eere.energy. gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/committee_report.pdf > Jim, overall you make some good points. And I do agree that we > should be working on the 10-20-30% improvements that can be had by > conservation, downsizing, hybridizing, etc. But that still puts out > a lot of CO2 and consumes lots of gasoline. So I think it slows > down the looming crisis (if you subscribe to the evidence), but > doesn't halt them. true, but from what i can see, a complete cessation of co2 production is unnecessary. parallel that with things like addressing deforestation and erosion, things that harm natural co2 absorbtion, and we have a more sustainable system. >>i'd also consider fuel cells. better conversion efficiency, and the >>fuel supply system is already in place. > > Gasoline-based fuel cell research has been all-but abandoned. I > could go into the issues, but they are numerous. when federal tax benefits & grants stopped, yes. what are the technical problems? you're probably going to have a butane fuel cell in your laptop before long. > Hydrogen fuel > cells are what all the auto companies are spending their R&D > effort on, to the tune of over $1B. because that's where the federal tax credits are. doesn't mean the decision to subsidize hydrogen research is based on good science. > Note that is corporate > money, not tax payer (though the DOE budget over the next 5 > years is slated at a combined $1.7B or so). but again, that is eligible for 100% write-off is it not? whether the subsidy comes from a direct payout or from 100% write-off, doesn't it amount to the same thing? > Direct methanol may > have small portable application. Large stationary may be natural [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.eere.energy. > gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/committee_report.pdf sure, hydrogen fuel cells work, and the by-product is water, but let's address the practical reality: hydrogen is, per kilogram, not as energy dense as gasoline, and somewhat more hazardous in both transportation & storage. what use is hydrogen if you can't safely transport or store it? the space shuttle, which uses liquid hydrogen, has to be fueled as closely as possible before launch to reduce risk & losses. >true, but from what i can see, a complete cessation of co2 production is >unnecessary. parallel that with things like addressing deforestation >and erosion, things that harm natural co2 absorbtion, and we have a more >sustainable system. I agree we won't fully cease serious CO2 production, and do not need to. But consider that the number of car owners is going to radically escalate as China, India, and pretty much the rest of the world continues to grow economically. Say we have 2x the miles driven in 2030... [gasoline FC's] >when federal tax benefits & grants stopped, yes. what are the technical >problems? you're probably going to have a butane fuel cell in your >laptop before long. Gasoline FC's require a fuel processor to break the HC into H2 + CO2 and CO, then the CO gets "water gas shifted" to H2+CO2. The first process req's about 700-800C temperature. The latter about 200-300C and is a big reactor. Getting these up to T requires a lot of time and fuel energy (efficiency hit), not practical for room T starting a car in seconds. Any sulfur poisons these reactors, so likely require a sulfur trap (another invention). You'll always have breakthrough impurities that poison the delicate FC catalyst. Can mitigate that at extra cost with a performance hit. You have a very dilute (~40%) H2 stream going to the FC which impacts performance and requires extremely careful flow control to maintain efficiency. Controlling this whole process through typical driving transients is seriously difficult. A big hybrid battery is required. But batteries also aren't very good from freeze conditions, nor cost and weight. Doing a durable, cost-effect FC vehicle working with the ideal fuel H2, is hard enough. The above complicates it so much that this solution, once considered an interim, would probably take many more years to solve than the H2 FC. It isn't impossible, just extremely challenging. >> Hydrogen fuel >because that's where the federal tax credits are. doesn't mean the >decision to subsidize hydrogen research is based on good science. I'm unsure what you mean by "tax credits". I do not think the auto makers are getting any tax credits. And the recently enacted one for end-users is really just a show of support which will not ever amount to any real $ (in the 5 years at least). >> Note that is corporate >> money, not tax payer (though the DOE budget over the next 5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >subsidy comes from a direct payout or from 100% write-off, doesn't it >amount to the same thing? Again, I do not know to what you refer. I do not think the automakers get to write-off any of this R&D. Most of the above $1.7B goes to Nat'l Labs, universities, and specific company research proposals. This doesn't include the huge budgets that the auto companies are expending on their proprietary R&D. >sure, hydrogen fuel cells work, and the by-product is water, but let's >address the practical reality: hydrogen is, per kilogram, not as energy >dense as gasoline, and somewhat more hazardous in both transportation & >storage. what use is hydrogen if you can't safely transport or store >it? the space shuttle, which uses liquid hydrogen, has to be fueled as >closely as possible before launch to reduce risk & losses. Per kg, it is actually the best. It's the per volume where it, uh, has issues :-) As to safety, many safety certifying agencies (German TUV, both US and Japan DOT, etc) have certified the new 10Kpsi tanks. Liq H2 has a boil-off issue which is more about loss of the fuel (which quickly dissipates) than about safety. I'd be more afraid of the Shuttles liq O2! Yes, H2 has a low ignition E, wide flammability limits, and permeates through most anything. Actually its high diffusivity can help as it dissipates very quickly as opposed to gasoline vapors which can collect making a very dangerous situation. I'm confident we can engineer safe H2 systems. The real Q is can we store enough, *cheaply* to satisfy customer range req't. I think H2 concerns are more myth ("Hindenburg") and the devil we don't know. Not to say there aren't issues. But if one proposed gasoline today, it would never happen. Just 100 years of engineering, and user experience (thus comfort), makes it palatable. > commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current > electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning > fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only > marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car. youd think burning the fuel directly in the car would be the most efficient >> commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current >> electric car model [such as it is] is not so great because burning >> fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only >> marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car. > > youd think burning the fuel directly in the car would be the most efficient not thermodynamically. or at least, not currently. formula 1 engines are pretty good because they run at real high combustion temps, the key to best yield, but to do that reliably for the mileage of the average family sedan requires expensive and/or different materials. i recall reading some stuff on ceramics in diesel engines, and they allowed both higher combustion temperature [with accompanying increase in efficiency] and a significant increase in service life. but as you may imagine, manufacturers did not show any interest in the last of these two. and to be fair, production cost at that time was very high. but if they had production runs in the millions, that situation would change pretty quick... > jim beam wrote: > > commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. the current [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > youd think burning the fuel directly in the car would be the most efficient Electric motors are high efficiency, typically well over 80%. Commercial power plant efficiencies can run as high as 40 or 45%. The typical car engine is operating at about 30% efficiency. I would expect strictly electric cars (using power from commercial plants) to lower energy consumption enough to make them a viable alternative. As you probably know, they do have other, operational shortcomings, though. http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml is just one site that discusses the efficiency differences. There is also the advantage of being able to use nuclear power plants (among other non-fossil fueled plant options) to provide power for charging electric vehicle batteries. This would reduce dependence on foreign oil. I happen to favor Jim's suggestion IIRC of legislating smaller engines to at least some extent. It is a good quick fix. Meanwhile, legislate incentives to come up with alternatives for smaller engines. > it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel > model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fossil fuels to generate electricity that charges batteries is only > marginally more efficient than burning the fuel in the car. Several of the owners of electric cars that I know are using solar power to charge car. This makes the most sense, and gives you essentially a solar powered car. Those that don't have solar are required (I think) to use time-of-day metering, enticing them to recharge at night, when rates are lower because there is excess capacity available. The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles. A plug-in hybrid would solve the range problem. As I was driving down the road yesterday at about 3pm (desired peak for on-grid solar production), I was struck by the number of empty roofs that were pointed directly at the sun, not taking advantage of the solar power. If you have enough roof space, a solar system can be installed with a pre-arranged loan where the payments equal your current electric bill. Next year, when electric rates go up, you are ahead of the game. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > Several of the owners of electric cars that I know are using solar power to > charge car. This makes the most sense, and gives you essentially a solar > powered car. Those that don't have solar are required (I think) to use > time-of-day metering, enticing them to recharge at night, when rates are > lower because there is excess capacity available. The off peak charging > increases the true efficiency of the vehicles. The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or the consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to be anal and keep the vocab straight. If what you mean is that one can save more dollars on fuel (powering the electric plant that provides the electricity to one's home) by being able to charge electric car batteries at the optimal time, then I agree. >> The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles. > The off-peak charging has no effect on the thermodynamic efficiency or the > consumption of fuel used ultimately to provide the car's power. Just to be > anal and keep the vocab straight. Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason? In California, there is substantial off-peak capacity that is available, quite a bit of it from non-fueled sources, such as geothermal and hydro-electric. I believe that the use of off-peak power is more efficient than peak power. The thermodynamic efficiency might be improved merely by the difference in ambient temperature of various generating and delivery infrastructure elements. The possibility that one more fossil fuel power plant might not have to come on line to meet daytime demand is not insignificant. I have a hard time deciphering two of the words in your sentence, but I think I picked up the intent. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> The off peak charging increases the true efficiency of the vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason? I was thinking you were getting at time-of-use metering designed to preclude, say, brownouts in summer. > In California, there is substantial off-peak capacity that is available, > quite a bit of it from non-fueled sources, such as geothermal and > hydro-electric. I believe that the use of off-peak power is more efficient > than peak power. The thermodynamic efficiency might be improved merely by > the difference in ambient temperature of various generating and delivery > infrastructure elements. Oh, I see your point. Okay. >> Does PG&E promote time-of-use metering for some other reason? > I was thinking you were getting at time-of-use metering designed to > preclude, say, brownouts in summer. Same idea. We don't want to add generating capacity on an already hot day, which in turn generates a little more daytime heat. (Tokyo supposedly has a higher core city temperature and humidity because of the air conditioner exhaust that results in measurably higher usage of air conditioning.) The summer rates are .29 day and .086 night. I classify anything that PG&E does to be for economic reasons, but in addition to that, I can see benefit from spreading the load, and use the PG&E numbers as a guide to how worthwhile they think it is to spread the load. The winter numbers are .11 and .089. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel > model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or > wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for local > commute traffic affording known recharge schedules. Right. The trouble is that the power itself has to be generated somehow. Oil supplies are finite, even if they're not going to run out anytime soon (I don't know whose projections I'd trust, frankly), and the emissions from gasoline engines can't be great for our air/atmosphere. To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling station", and I kinda doubt a battery-swapping plan could be made workable. I also doubt we'll have mini-nuclear reactors in cars anytime soon. Al Qaeda would have a field day. That leaves some sort of fuel that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt always shine... > imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban, > suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because they "need" them should go to europe for a few minutes to get > some perspective. Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care about gas guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because those controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity. Oh well, to hell in a handbasket we go. > That leaves some sort of fuel > that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous > breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt > always shine... Oh, I forgot: microwave power transmission! Just in case your brain wasn't already fried enough by your cell phone... > To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of > gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait > around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling I prefer to charge my own batteries, after last night's solar system charge-up has been depleted. Plug-in hybrid solves that. No change at all to the existing infrastructure, except to encourage more home installations of solar, not a necessary component. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of >>gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to the existing infrastructure, except to encourage more home installations > of solar, not a necessary component. You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not viable for long trips. > You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not viable > for long trips. I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels would be more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional infrastructure. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops >for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels would be >more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I >would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional >infrastructure. Plug-in hybrids seem to make sense. Though you'll need a bigger battery (at added cost, mass, volume or reduced cargo capacity) to make it viable. Bigger battery and greater range of discharge is needed to use it effectively. Battery life is adversely affected with greater range of discharge. Present hybrids get around this by keeping the state-of-charge in a narrow band (say +/- 10%). I'm not saying it is not doable. In fact, I think it could well play a significant role. But just off the top of my head, it will incur some significant costs and tradeoffs. > I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops > for gasoline. Current mid-size diesels can do that, too. >> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops >> for gasoline. > Current mid-size diesels can do that, too. I was referring to the lack of need to stop for recharging, in comparison to a full electric vehicle. If a current mid-size diesel can get good range, why wouldn't adding an electric hybrid option to a diesel make it even higher mileage? Maybe it would, but it wouldn't be as green. The VW TDI series isn't available in California. Mazda is working on a rotary hydrogen ICE/electric hybrid. http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshows/articles/100643/page019.html Continental had a four-sided rotary diesel electric generation plant. If one could get over the fact that the RPM didn't change with load or road speed, the way a typical diesel locomotive works, that might be an efficient platform. There are many alternatives possible. I think the addition of an electric motor is a fine augmentation to current state of the art ICE. ICE: Internal Combustion Engine. I C E: In Case of Emergency contact listed in your cell phone. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not viable >>for long trips. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional > infrastructure. Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run out of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to afford. >>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not >>> viable for long trips. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run out > of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to afford. wasn't a lot of the bleating about diminishing reserves done to get tax write-offs? wasting asset status? personally. i doubt reserves will be seriously pinched any time soon. or even during our grand kids lifetimes. and then we can just switch to biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are by far the easiest solution. > >>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not > >>> viable for long trips. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are > by far the easiest solution. One of the local newspapers mentioned some people that are now making use of recycled french fry oil that they get for free from restaurants. I seem to recall that country singer Willie Nelson makes use of it in his bus. The owner of one of those vehicles that burn it said that the only problem is that it makes the car smell like french fries so his kids are always asking him to stop at MacDonalds so they can order some french fries. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > One of the local newspapers mentioned some people that are now making use > of recycled french fry oil that they get for free from restaurants. Darling International Inc. provides recycling and rendering services in which animal and food waste products are turned into useful commercial goods, including tallow, protein meals (Meat and Bone Meal), and yellow grease. Darling also services the restaurant industry by removing used cooking oil and pumping grease traps. so basically if everyone used old cooking oil to drive, the price of this stuff goes up: http://www.darlingii.com/products/animal_protiens/index.html >>>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not >>>> viable for long trips. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are > by far the easiest solution. I agree that they are certainly easier now, but I can easily imagine a future time when another solution could become equally easy, once its technical hurdles have been ironed out and it goes into mass-production. It mostly comes down to how important people decide that it is to make a change, and the energy invested in finding solutions. It is pretty much impossible to get accurate figures about reserves. See this interesting piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm . If OPEC countries can pump more if they have greater reserves and they therefore inflate reported reserves, if they don't allow outside auditing, and if estimated reserves have remained unchanged in 20 years, we're basically without real information. Never mind the difficulties of mapping what's actually deep underground. Then there are the difficulties estimating future demand. It's a morass made deeper by the vast industries/sums riding on the info. For the sake of discussion, however, let's take an OPEC 2003 estimate of 1 trillion barrels world reserves and the ~77.75 million barrels/day world consumption (from the BBC article): the reserves would last a bit over 35 years if consumption were to remain the same. Consumption is certain to increase, as China, etc. become more industrialized, however. 35 years ain't that far off. And then there's the geological question of what happens to the planet as that volume of matter is removed from the crust. One 42-US gallon barrel = 5.6146 cubic feet, or 0.145 metric tons. I can't be bothered to figure out an estimate of how much crude has been extracted to date to come up with a volume. Per day it's currently 436.54 million cubic feet. That equates to 159.34 billion cubic feet per year, or 1.082 cubic *miles*/year. That kind of volume is miniscule considering the scale we're dealing with, granted--the earth's total volume is ~260 *billion* cubic miles--but crude is removed from the earths crust, which apparently ranges from ~3 miles thick in much of the ocean to avg. 19-28 miles thick on the continents surveyed at http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Gabi/rem.dir/crust/crust2.dir/crust2a.thick.gif. How is that volume distributed? Is it simply replaced by water (I've seen examples of oil wells atop water)? How does it impact on plate tectonics? Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being extracted? What other potential problems do we face? I'm no expert, and simply don't know. <snip> > Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being extracted? At last, peace in the Middle East. Maybe we should encourage consumption? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe we should encourage consumption? LOL! If only it were that easy... <g> >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LOL! If only it were that easy... <g> <wisely> Somtimes it must be difficult to be truly easy, Grasshopper. >> it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel >> model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity. Oh well, > to hell in a handbasket we go. You sound like some liberal bed wetter, boy. <vbg> >> Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, >> should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <vbg> LOL. Hey, I'm just a realist, and happen to believe strongly in efficient use of resources--in general. Using non-renewable stuff up is inherently inefficient, but using it up faster is more inefficient than using it slower. Actually, I drive a puny Honda Civic and can't see around those monster SUV bastards, which fuels my ire... ;-)) But even worse is the fact that their suspension is so high up, and my Honda's so low, that my hood now sports a few good dimples where some a.sholes just backed right up over my car when pulling out of a parking space. So I'm pissed at SUVs for other reasons. GRRRRR!! >>> Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, >>> should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > my car when pulling out of a parking space. So I'm pissed at SUVs for > other reasons. GRRRRR!! Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just don't seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional vehicles when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious. And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4 year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is, "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen just a couple times a year is simply insane. For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a conservative Republican. ;-) - Rich >>>>Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, >>>>should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Rich funny! and so true. "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote snip > Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just don't > seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for > the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious. The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer. > And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo > space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a > conservative Republican. ;-) Ha. I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to be! > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > snip [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to > be! I heard that Kerry was observed driving an SUV. When a liberal member of the press questioned him about it, his response was "The SUV is owned by my wife." SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to > be! LOL. Liberal = "I can drive any unsafe gas-guzzling ststus symbol I want"? > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > snip [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of > SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer. I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe. The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy, they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on. But when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-) Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't. >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to > be! Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, just like being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and ACLU. ;-) - Rich "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote E wrote > > The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of > > SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally > longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on. The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time, IMO. Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis. But > when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather > seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they > *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-) > Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can > be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate > tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't. When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's driving habits. So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period. > >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo > >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses. In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and environmentalists. > just like > being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and > ACLU. ;-) You are simply naming exceptions to the rule, and huge ones at that. I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra Club or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described "conservatives." > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > E wrote [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period. Uh oh, I was a testosterone laden 17 year old boy who bought a 5L Mustang. ;-) Which was, if I may say, absolutely the worst possible car to drive in the snow. Ever. Even with excellent tires. >> >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo >> >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and > environmentalists. It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic political definition, then a liberal could very easily be the owner of, say, a fleet of SUVs that leak oil like, well, my old Mustang. ;-) The sound-bite definition of a liberal is closer to what you describe, even if it's really an unholy combination of a political view with enviromental and other attitudes. >> just like >> being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described "conservatives." I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations, and until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-) ObHonda: If anyone has gotten this far - any recommendations for a decent roof rack that fits a 2002 Civic? - Rich "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote E wrote > >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic > political definition, This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote Libertarian!," right? I prefer the real world. snip > > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra Club > > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations, and > until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-) For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections? > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > E wrote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I prefer the real world. Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party. > snip >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections? Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-) But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed, depending on who happens to be running. - Rich > On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle > > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party. Ha. :-) Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my experience includes certain self-described Libertarians). > > snip > >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed, > depending on who happens to be running. I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an Independent. >> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle >> > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my > experience includes certain self-described Libertarians). It would be pedantic of me to point out that the definition of liberal I used has been historically the primary meaning, so I won't. ;-) But yes, my experience with Libertarians has been that they generally attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they're actually Libertarians, but just haven't been educated enough to realize it yet. Which, to me, is extraordinarily annoying. >> > snip >> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an > Independent. Again, definitions. My experience is that people who are declared Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote to the right in local elections - but almost always go left in the nationals. I call myself a conservative because I tend to prefer political policies that pretty much leave me to my own devices, whether it involves launching loud and noisy rockets in the desert, or marrying a box turtle. But I'm happy to pay taxes for clean water, to give a helping hand to people who have had problems ( just not TOO much of a hand ;-) ), and to pay for public sculptures whose purpose and meaning I can't even begin to fathom. But hey, that's OK, as long as my industry gets big tax breaks so I stay employed. ;-) - Rich "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote E > > Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of > > "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my > > experience includes certain self-described Libertarians). > > It would be pedantic of me to point out that the definition of > liberal I used has been historically the primary meaning, so I won't. ;-) Likewise, it would be pedantic of me to point out that context is everything, so here, it should have been obvious that the definition I intended was the modern political one. ;-) > But yes, my experience with Libertarians has been that they generally > attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they're actually > Libertarians, but just haven't been educated enough to realize it yet. Well put. > Which, to me, is extraordinarily annoying. It is helpful in the sense that it saves time: I move on more quickly to talk to someone else more intelligent. > >> > snip > >> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote > to the right in local elections - Interesting. I've seen just the opposite: Self-described Independents I've known tend to lean Right. Not saying you're lying or anything. > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > E [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Not saying you're lying or anything. Obviously we need to start a country composed of your friends and mine, and we'll have a perfect place where, uh, ( desperately thinking of how to get back on topic... ) everyone will buy Honda vehicles and be kind to kittens. ;-) - Rich "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote E wrote > >> > I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an > >> > Independent. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thinking of how to get back on topic... ) everyone will > buy Honda vehicles and be kind to kittens. ;-) Hold on there: My friends are all Democrats. These Independents (of either your or my breeds) are no more than acquaintances or sports teammates. The Democrats stand for and behind certain highly important core values which the typical Independent is happy to abandon for issues that are lesser in value to society AFAIC. That's not irrational of them. It's just not my "religion" to put my personal needs so far ahead of greater society's. Not that every Democrat is right about everything. Some are horribly wrong about many things. Elle "... she writes as she checks how the stock markets are doing today. " Back to Honda >>"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote >>E wrote [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > It really depends on how you're using "liberal" In the modern US political parlance "liberal" is used as a pejorative to refer to anyone not toeing the neocon/GOP party line. It's used interchangeably with "commie", "pinko", "fag", "feminazi", etc. IOW, it has no meaning. > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > E wrote [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > It does to me. Last I looked, you haven't been appointed to speak on behalf of "liberals" (whatever they are). "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote E > >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, > > > > It does to me. > > Last I looked, you haven't been appointed to speak on behalf of > "liberals" (whatever they are). You have a problem with people posting an opinion? Note the qualification, "to me." You haven't been appointed government censor. >>"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote >>snip [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and > ACLU. ;-) Well said, Rich! > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote > snip [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to > be! Maybe they're Democrats, not liberals? "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote E wrote > > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on > > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to > > be! > > Maybe they're Democrats, not liberals? You need a course in reading comprehension. > Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just don't > seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for > the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious. I used to make the same observations about Subarus. I think it is caused by the mindset that "I have 4wd, I can ignore the snow". Some would go flying by, at speeds I thought were ridiculous for conditions, apparently with success, others would plant it in a parking lot. > use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen > just a couple times a year is simply insane. I know people with large vehicles that are used rarely, for those occasions when they think they need power. One has a 2004 Ford F250 that sits most of the time, while she drives a Prius. Driving the F250 every day because you tow a trailer on vacation isn't sensible. I don't think owning one and leaving it in the driveway makes a lot of sense either, but ... Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban, > suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more > efficient vehicles. There was another thread about the excitement over the introduction of the Honda Fit to the US, a high mileage vehicle without the hybrid do-dads. What's wrong with a non-hybrid version of the Insight? I don't know, but that doesn't seem to be marketable. What about a hybrid Fit? Instead of 60mpg, maybe it could get 90mpg. I agree that a big part of the solution is getting into right-sized vehicles. My Ford Escape replaces a Dodge Durango. Sometimes I miss the extra room, but not often. I don't really miss the power. Adding Hybrid to the Escape bumps the mpg in this area from 19 to 29. If I could plug it in ... --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 Abeness said > > but abe, have you ever seen a scuba tank explode? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > also got a large TV mounted high on a wall. With the Fortran language, > it was expected to be easy to use. Hah hah. Don't believe everything you see on the Internet. That is a "manufactured" composite using an altered photo of this submarine manuvering room console: http://home.att.net/~jeff1_satobserve/photo17.htm The whole story is at: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp Casey > Don't believe everything you see on the Internet. Hah hah, thanks for refs, Casey. Normally I don't, but this one apparently slipped under the radar. In any case, my opinion re: progress remains. Abeness said > > Don't believe everything you see on the Internet. > > Hah hah, thanks for refs, Casey. Normally I don't, but this one > apparently slipped under the radar. This seems to be one of the ones that slips under most people's radar. I've overheard conversations where the topic was that "crazy-looking idea for a home computer with a steering wheel". It does look just like something out of an old Popular Science magazine. Casey dang, why do you need to buy Honda civic hybrid if you can buy Honda jazz with comparable MPG? lol........... i definitely would prefer honda jazz with lower engine that has comparable MPG...LOL Signature_karu_ Discussions from http://fitfreak.net > dang, why do you need to buy Honda civic hybrid if you can buy Honda > jazz with comparable MPG? lol........... > > i definitely would prefer honda jazz with lower engine that has > comparable MPG...LOL jazz not available yet, and some peeps need to sport their "eco-bling" >>I don't have the source of the picture/caption I have (probably from something like Popular Science), but the sucker is complete with a large steering wheel (yes, a steering wheel), lots of analog gauges covering a whole wall (yes, gauges!), and a maybe 18" teletype tractor feed printer. It's also got a large TV mounted high on a wall.<< BZZZZZZT! Wrong...but thanks for playing. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp > BZZZZZZT! Wrong...but thanks for playing. No reason to be a schmuck, Sid. If you had taken the time to read the thread before shooting off your mouth you would have seen Casey's note and my response, and you wouldn't have wasted anyone's time. >>> hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > but abe, have you ever seen a scuba tank explode? Only when Chief Brody shot one at the conclusion of "Jaws". :) > hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. Didn't some people once said that about the gasoline engine too? There actually more hydrogen fuel stations (9) than consumer hydrogen car (1). >>hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. > > Didn't some people once said that about the gasoline engine too? i'm not referring to the engine [although that has fundamental problems too] - i'm referring to hydrogen storage & transportation. > There actually more hydrogen fuel stations (9) than consumer hydrogen > car (1). > > I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go > > to hydrogen systems, but never electric. > > > hydrogen? no. logistics prohibitive. wildly unsafe. One might have said the same about acetylene. There are ways to solve the pressure problems. Some have already been discovered and are waiting for technology improvements. There may be even simpler solutions in the future. > I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go > to hydrogen systems, but never electric. Actually, that's what scares me about the Toyota parallel system. It's SO dependent on the software, there's no way to limp home. A simple series system like Honda's IMA is really the essence of Honda engineering. >>I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - >>no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go >>to hydrogen systems, but never electric. > > Actually, that's what scares me about the Toyota parallel system. It's > SO dependent on the software, there's no way to limp home. Get used to it - ultimately everything will be programmed (but not by Microsoft, please, God). > Get used to it - ultimately everything will be programmed (but not by > Microsoft, please, God). Amen, Brother Sparky. Reminds me of that old "if your car ran MS Windows 3.1..." gag that circulated by email many years ago. Was pretty funny. > > I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A simple series system like Honda's IMA is really the essence of Honda > engineering. But Honda's system doesn't work nearly as well. The Accord Hybrid is almost a joke with its tiny 15HP electric motor. It can go on full assist at 20MPH and you don't feel any acceleration. > > A simple series system like Honda's IMA is really the essence of Honda > > engineering. > > But Honda's system doesn't work nearly as well. As in "not as efficient," I agree. But in the real world, it's better to tradeoff the complexity of the Toyota system and get something that's less efficient but simpler in execution. > I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of traffic - > no power and creating massive backups. The industry will eventually go > to hydrogen systems, but never electric. The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid". >> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will >> eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric. > > The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid". Actually, they're true gasoline since that's their *only* power source. "Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise wouldn't. >>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise >wouldn't. Hmmm. I am as skeptical of "marketing" as anyone but I really don't think that people are buying the word, 'hybrid.' Some buyers like the high milage/green benefits. Others like the technology. I don't think anyone is buying because they like the word. > >>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of > >>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > high milage/green benefits. Others like the technology. I don't > think anyone is buying because they like the word. Hello, I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since they love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they talk to that they have a "hybrid". They also like it when fellow greenies see the word "hybrid" on the back of their cars." It's not the actual word that they love--it's the thought behind the word. An example is the word "diamond". It's the thought behind the word that is important when it comes to "hybrid" or "diamond". Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >> >>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >> >>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >It's the thought behind the word that is important when it comes to >"hybrid" or "diamond". >Jason Well it may be a matter of semantics but the way I see it, they are bragging the technology and benefits of the hybrid, not the word itself. I think most of them understand the technology reasonably well. It would be a different story if they had no real clue what 'hybrid' meant, or if hybrid technology didn't really do anything. Think Fahrfurnugen or Cab-Forward design. Got a Hemi in that thing? >>>>>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >>>>>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 'hybrid' meant, or if hybrid technology didn't really do anything. > Think Fahrfurnugen or Cab-Forward design. Got a Hemi in that thing? I was talking with a proud Prius owner just the other day. She was very pleased with her new car just as I am when I have a new vehicle. She showed me all the screens and even cranked on the A/C pointing out that it worked even when the car wasn't started. Very nice lady and a friend but in my experience, a typical hybrid owner. The point is that her A/C isn't working just because the heat-exchanger fan motor is running and, most importantly, her car is entirely powered by gasoline - just like mine. Sure her car is a bit more efficient using techniques such as regenerative braking but these could be put to use on my car too. The real reason her car is more efficient than mine has nothing to do with batteries or electric motors but is the direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline engine. Naturally, both could be used on my car too. So, when you think current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or hemi. You might also throw in extra profits & CAFE. > Sure her car is a bit more efficient using techniques such as > regenerative braking but these could be put to use on my car too. I'm not sure what you would do with all of the braking regenerative power. You've said that before, ignoring that it is a lot of power, more than is going to fit in your standard 12v battery, and more than you will consume in playing the radio and starting the car in between braking. > The real reason her car is more efficient than mine has nothing to do > with batteries or electric motors but is the direct result of the > computer control system and an advanced gasoline engine. Naturally, both > could be used on my car too. Why, then, is there no Honda Insight without the hybrid option? That should be a very high mileage vehicle in its own right. Maybe it would be too underpowered to be acceptable in the US. > So, when you think current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, > Cab-Forward design or hemi. You might also throw in extra profits & > CAFE. I thought you said the hybrids were a loss for the manufacturers, not a source of extra profits. And if CAFE is the goal, why aren't these non-hybrid improvements applied across the board? The Honda Civic HX seems to have some of the Civic Hybrid features, minus the hybrid and the regen braking, and it falls a little short in the mpg department. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > The Honda Civic HX seems to have some of the Civic Hybrid features, minus > the hybrid and the regen braking, and it falls a little short in the mpg > department. The HX has none of the hybrid's feature. It has a special lean burning engine. it seems like 05 will be the last year for it. >> The Honda Civic HX seems to have some of the Civic Hybrid features, minus >> the hybrid and the regen braking, and it falls a little short in the mpg >> department. > The HX has none of the hybrid's feature. It has a special lean burning > engine. it seems like 05 will be the last year for it. What features is it missing? Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> Sure her car is a bit more efficient using techniques such as >> regenerative braking but these could be put to use on my car too. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you will consume in playing the radio and starting the car in between > braking. Nor I but we certainly could think about it. I'm sure we could come up with something. >> The real reason her car is more efficient than mine has nothing to do >> with batteries or electric motors but is the direct result of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That should be a very high mileage vehicle in its own right. > Maybe it would be too underpowered to be acceptable in the US. Maybe it's because Honda hasn't jettisoned the excess weight and given it a try. >> So, when you think current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, >> Cab-Forward design or hemi. You might also throw in extra profits & [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a source of extra profits. And if CAFE is the goal, why aren't these > non-hybrid improvements applied across the board? Not I. CAFE is an average. Doesn't take too many government OK'd calims of 50+ MPG to do the trick. > The Honda Civic HX seems to have some of the Civic Hybrid features, > minus the hybrid and the regen braking, and it falls a little short > in the mpg department. Really depends on where and how you're driving, doesn't it? No doubt the HX equals or bests the hybrid in some circumstances. In the end, it takes 745.7 Watts for each horsepower generated by a hybrid - completely ignoring losses. Except for the small amount generated by regenerative braking, the rest comes from gasoline. > In the end, it takes 745.7 Watts for each horsepower generated by a > hybrid - completely ignoring losses. Except for the small amount > generated by regenerative braking, the rest comes from gasoline. The Honda has a very simple gage for charge/discharge. It's a 15 horsepower motor, which presumably is consuming 745*15 watts when it swings to a full "assist" on the scale. It also then, presumably generates 15*745 when it swings full scale the other way. The time period when that is happening is small in the overall scheme of things, but it is not insignificant. Very light braking generates at least 1/3 of the scale for extended periods. The 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid IMA is rated at 15KW/20HP. And the rest comes from gasoline. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >Really depends on where and how you're driving, doesn't it? No doubt the HX >equals or bests the hybrid in some circumstances. In the end, it takes 745.7 >Watts for each horsepower generated by a hybrid - completely ignoring >losses. Except for the small amount generated by regenerative braking, the >rest comes from gasoline. Regen braking can, in theory, recover about 30-40% of the energy used on the EPA city cycle. In reality, with losses it is probably more like 10-15% increase in fuel economy. A hybrid also allows the designer to readily shut the engine off on idle. In theory, you could do this with any engine and just use the 12V+starter to get it going again. Practically, no one does this. I suppose for drivability, NVH, and maybe starter motor wear issues. A hybrid also allows you to run closer to the sweet spot of the engine. For example, a gasoline ICE maxes out at about 35% thermal efficiency. But in the normal driving load & rpm, it is more like 20%. By running at a higher load, where it is more efficient, than required. And feeding this to the battery. Then subsequently running at virtually no load, and letting the battery+motor run the vehicle, the average ICE operating efficiency is increased. Last, a hybrid allows downsizing the engine without sacrificing performance. A smaller engine runs at an average higher load, where (see above) it is more efficient. So I'd say there are 4 solid reasons why a hybrid can return better fuel economy. Certainly there are minuses (cost, weight, complexity), and yes, the real-world gains never seem to match the advertised EPA numbers. > A hybrid also allows the designer to readily shut the engine off on > idle. In theory, you could do this with any engine and just use the > 12V+starter to get it going again. Practically, no one does this. > I suppose for drivability, NVH, and maybe starter motor wear issues. In Milan, Italy, all cars were required to auto-stop, with normal engines and starters. This led to substantial problems with worn out starters, premature battery failure, and led to dubious improvements in air quality. The hybrid spins the engine at 1000 RPM to start the engine, higher than the 150 RPM startup of a typical engine, yielding a cleaner startup. The effort for the hybrid to start the engine is obviously trivial, and often cannot be felt, whether auto-start or key initiated. > Last, a hybrid allows downsizing the engine without sacrificing > performance. A smaller engine runs at an average higher load, where > (see above) it is more efficient. My Honda hybrid with CVT is far more pleasant to drive than a Civic with an automatic. It is smoother and quicker in town. > Certainly there are minuses (cost, weight, complexity), and yes, the > real-world gains never seem to match the advertised EPA numbers. My Honda highway mileage exceeds EPA estimates. My city driving is a little lower. The Escape/Prius/Lexus hybrids don't perform up to EPA spec in the city, because no one drives a city cycle. The fact that the highway mileage is lower than the city mileage makes a "normal" blend of driving lower than the EPA city rating, where consumers have gotten used to the city EPA being something achievable as an average. If you try to drive one of these undersized engines for something resembling performance, the MPG plummets. It's a little tiny engine, and it can't work hard for long. The regen isn't going to help out long term without some gaps in the demand. When I tow a horse trailer with my Escape, I get about 17mpg. That is likely the same as a V-6, and I have less power for long grades, although acceleration is fine. I just can't maintain that power load for very long. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> Really depends on where and how you're driving, doesn't it? No doubt >> the HX equals or bests the hybrid in some circumstances. In the end, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > used on the EPA city cycle. In reality, with losses it is probably > more like 10-15% increase in fuel economy. In real-world situations, I think 10% is overly generous but I'll go with that. > A hybrid also allows the designer to readily shut the engine off on > idle. In theory, you could do this with any engine and just use the > 12V+starter to get it going again. Practically, no one does this. > I suppose for drivability, NVH, and maybe starter motor wear issues. For ICE powered vehicles, this could easily be fixed with computer software, inexpensive mechanical changes to the engine and a starter motor with real bearings and an electronic commutator. In fact some Ford Focus engines already do part of what's needed. In an overheating situation, they're able to shutdown certain cylinders, turning them into air pumps that cool the engine. > A hybrid also allows you to run closer to the sweet spot of the > engine. For example, a gasoline ICE maxes out at about 35% thermal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > running at virtually no load, and letting the battery+motor run the > vehicle, the average ICE operating efficiency is increased. For ICE powered vehicles this can all be taken care of with improved transmissions. CVTs and 6 speed automatics are a start. > Last, a hybrid allows downsizing the engine without sacrificing > performance. A smaller engine runs at an average higher load, where > (see above) it is more efficient. But performance is sacrificed. The efficiency goals could probably be met with the suggestions I made. If we don't try, we'll never know. The incentive for trying would be a more economical, less complex vehicle that could be sold for a more reasonable price, thus reaching a larger audience. > So I'd say there are 4 solid reasons why a hybrid can return better > fuel economy. I say they're not nearly as clear cut as you make them seem. > Certainly there are minuses (cost, weight, complexity), and yes, the > real-world gains never seem to match the advertised EPA numbers. These things are rightly discussed in cafes at the other end of the Universe. >The real reason her car is more efficient >than mine has nothing to do with batteries or electric motors but is the >direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline >engine. Huh? I recall an SAE sponsored talk from a Honda VP who said that the Insight got about a third of its mpg benefit from each of: lightweighting, engine downsizing and efficiency improvements, regen braking. The battery/motor is directly responsible for the latter. How will you do regen without a motor/generator? The hybridization enables the engine downsizing, ie it allows you to maintain acceptable acceleration with a smaller engine. And the hybridization allows you power management advantages, ie you can run the engine in more efficient ranges. Sourcing/sinking to the batteries allows this. The Prius is not light like the Insight. And it has a much larger battery. Thus much more of its mpg benefit is directly due to hybridization. >>> Hello, >>> I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline >engine. Naturally, both could be used on my car too. Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the Prius' gasoline motor which would explain it's exceptional fuel economy. The computer only improves economy because it has a battery and motor to control. If manufacturers could get the same benefit without these expensive parts, why don't they do it? The fact is that the most advanced gas engine with computer control cannot match this efficiency level, at least not with acceptable performance. > So, when you think >current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or hemi. >You might also throw in extra profits & CAFE. I thought everyone was saying that the manufacturers are losing money on hybrids. As for CAFE, it wouldn't help your CAFE if it didn't improve milage. >>>>Hello, >>>>I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > on hybrids. As for CAFE, it wouldn't help your CAFE if it didn't > improve milage. "volumized" gas with low calorific content doesn't do much for cafe either. >>>> Hello, >>>> I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the most advanced gas engine with computer control cannot match this > efficiency level, at least not with acceptable performance. No, the fact is, with the exception of a truly minor assist from regenerative braking, the hybrid's only source of energy is gasoline - just like a non-hybrid. The comparison becomes even more interesting when you consider that the regenerative braking assist is rendered less significant because the hybrid is required to carry the extra weight associated with the extra electrics/electronics. Then, there's the losses associated with mechanical > electrical > electrical > mechanical and all the way back for regenerative braking (maybe less the dc > ac conversion). Just doesn't add up. And, there 's more to the story too. The performance boost you're referring to is only there for a brief period of time. Soon the batteries need a charge and the ICE isn't powerful enough to fully charge the batteries and simultaneously power the car so, it mostly powers the car. There is no free lunch. >> So, when you think >> current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on hybrids. As for CAFE, it wouldn't help your CAFE if it didn't > improve milage. Not sure what everyone else is saying but I can tell you for sure that the car makers aren't philanthropic organizations. Nearly all of them improved CAFE figures by simply insisting that everyone use 5W20 weight motor oil. The manufacturers didn't charge a thing and, other than adjusting documentation, it didn't cost them a anything either. >> Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control >> these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >regenerative braking, the hybrid's only source of energy is gasoline - just >like a non-hybrid. What did I say that would lead anyone to believe otherwise? The issue is how the hybrid system improves the efficiency of conversion of gasoline to kinetic energy. Saying that the only source of energy is gasoline is a red herring. Actually, the only source of energy is the Sun. Mother Nature just converted a portion of the solar energy to oil for our convenience. >The comparison becomes even more interesting when you >consider that the regenerative braking assist is rendered less significant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >regenerative braking (maybe less the dc > ac conversion). Just doesn't add >up. Of course, any conversion from one kind of energy to another involves inefficiencies. Merely listing them out says nothing about the overall efficiency of the system. Honda did use regenerative braking of a sort on a Civic model about 15 years ago. The computer would only allow the alternator to supply power when the vehicle was decelerating (or if the battery charge dropped too low.) It's benefit was pretty small. Diesel locomotives drive generators which power electric motors which move the train. Why not just have the diesel engine turn the wheels directly? Because the use of electric conversion is more efficient overall, even though the extra conversion involves a loss of energy. The railroad companies don't buy diesel-electric locomotives so they can brag about driving a hybrid. And all the energy comes form diesel oil. > And, there 's more to the story too. The performance boost you're >referring to is only there for a brief period of time. Soon the batteries >need a charge and the ICE isn't powerful enough to fully charge the >batteries and simultaneously power the car so, it mostly powers the car. >There is no free lunch. You seem to believe that everyone who buys a hybrid thinks he owns a perpetual motion machine. The fact is that the performance boost is only needed for a short time. Most car engines spend only 1% of their working hours producing their rated horsepower. There is lots of extra capacity for charging the batteries. Other posters have listed numerous reasons why hybrid systems increase efficiency. It could be all academic except that hybrid cars are at the top of the chart for high-milage gasoline road cars. >>> So, when you think >>> current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The manufacturers didn't charge a thing and, other than adjusting >documentation, it didn't cost them a anything either. And it didn't provide much benefit either. Can you point to any cars which increased their EPA milage ratings by even 1 mpg as a result of switching to lighter oil? >>> Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control >>> these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > gasoline to kinetic energy. Saying that the only source of energy is > gasoline is a red herring. 'Gasoline only energy source' needs repeating because inserting energy conversions into an existing system doesn't magically result in an efficiency improvement. In the case of the hybrid, the real improvement is small and it is largely due to increased efficiencies that could be economically added to non-hybrid vehicles - like low resistance tyres, for example. Of course, like other efficiency improving hybrid systems, not everyone likes the results. In this case, the handling ability of low resistance tyres sux. > Actually, the only source of energy is the Sun. Mother Nature just > converted a portion of the solar energy to oil for our convenience. Not exactly, but... >> The comparison becomes even more interesting when you >> consider that the regenerative braking assist is rendered less [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > inefficiencies. Merely listing them out says nothing about the > overall efficiency of the system. When they are non-existent in the original system, listing them becomes very important. > Honda did use regenerative braking of a sort on a Civic model about 15 > years ago. The computer would only allow the alternator to supply > power when the vehicle was decelerating (or if the battery charge > dropped too low.) It's benefit was pretty small. So simple. They should've kept it. > Diesel locomotives drive generators which power electric motors which > move the train. Why not just have the diesel engine turn the wheels [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can brag about driving a hybrid. And all the energy comes form diesel > oil. Actually, diesel-electric locomotives are the way they are for reasons completely unrelated to efficiency. Understandable when you consider that the design dates from a time when fuel efficiency wasn't a design consideration. Reliability was the paramount consideration. >> And, there 's more to the story too. The performance boost you're >> referring to is only there for a brief period of time. Soon the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > working hours producing their rated horsepower. There is lots of > extra capacity for charging the batteries. This depends entirely on need. Some needs are serious and immediate. For example, if I've just exhausted the battery by getting to speed and jocking for position on an interstate, what happens if I need maneuvering power to avoid a potential accident situation? In this case, today's hybrid is actually a safety liability. I'd be interested in know the source for your use of 1%. You need to keep in mind that the 'lots of extra capacity for charging the batteries' consumes gasoline that would not be consumed in a non-hybrid vehicle. > Other posters have listed numerous reasons why hybrid systems increase > efficiency. It could be all academic except that hybrid cars are at > the top of the chart for high-milage gasoline road cars. Other than quoting MPG figures, not really. The only system that is a net + is regenerative braking and, truth be told, it's not that big a deal. The chart topping had much more to do with driving style & political posturing than science. >>>> So, when you think >>>> current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > which increased their EPA milage ratings by even 1 mpg as a result of > switching to lighter oil? True but the change apparently netted the manufacturers what they needed and that's what they were after. >> What did I say that would lead anyone to believe otherwise? The issue >> is how the hybrid system improves the efficiency of conversion of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >everyone likes the results. In this case, the handling ability of low >resistance tyres sux. Let me explain it to you this way. They hybrid system allows the horribly inefficient ICE to run closer to its theoretical efficiency of 30% instead of its usual 20%. (These numbers come form other posters in this thread along with explanations of the various ways in which ICE efficiency is enhanced by the hybrid system.) Lets say that instead of 20%, ICE efficiency goes to 25%. Now most of that energy bypasses the hybrid system and goes straight to the wheels - no conversion inefficiency. And the portion that does get converted let's say it is the entire 5% gain, is handled more efficiently than ICE. Let's say it is 50% efficient in total. That would mean that overall efficiency of the gasoline-only powered vehicle would have increased form 20 to 22.5%, a 12.5% increase. Admittedly these numbers are made up but the reality is that the system does make the vehicle much more efficient. I Googled the Civic Hybrid (a great test bed since it is available with and without the hybrid system) and found A Motor Trend one year test: http://motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_0404_verdict/index1.html "We experimented with driving style to determine its impact on fuel economy. One week, we'd be miserly efficient, carefully monitoring shift points, accelerating slowly, and keeping speed under 65 mph on Interstates. The next week, we'd drive it like a teenager in a vinyl-emblazoned Si, going full throttle at all times. The 1100-mile experiment using the exact same route showed mild driving returned 48.2 mpg and wild driving netted 46.1 mpg. Needless to say, that was the end of granny mode." (They actually ended up getting about 41 mpg over the 23,000 mile test.) Now, I don't know what kind of milage the regular Civic gets in typical driving, but I guess it might be 35 mpg on a good day. If so, the hybrid is 17 - 33% more efficient. How much of that do you think can be attributed to tires? >> Of course, any conversion from one kind of energy to another involves >> inefficiencies. Merely listing them out says nothing about the >> overall efficiency of the system. > >When they are non-existent in the original system, listing them becomes very >important. List them all you want, but they don't alter the real world reality that the hybrid system increases efficiency as measured in mpg of gasoline, the only energy source they use. >> Honda did use regenerative braking of a sort on a Civic model about 15 >> years ago. The computer would only allow the alternator to supply >> power when the vehicle was decelerating (or if the battery charge >> dropped too low.) It's benefit was pretty small. > >So simple. They should've kept it. You missed the part about the benefit being very small. >> You seem to believe that everyone who buys a hybrid thinks he owns a >> perpetual motion machine. The fact is that the performance boost is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >for position on an interstate, what happens if I need maneuvering power to >avoid a potential accident situation? To exhaust the battery you would have to have been driving like a maniac for an extended period of time. > In this case, today's hybrid is >actually a safety liability. I'd be interested in know the source for your >use of 1%. Common sense. If I try to get maximum power out of my engine for more than a minute at a time, the fuel shuts off because the speed has reached 130 mph. What percent of the time do you spend driving with your foot on the floor? > You need to keep in mind that the 'lots of extra capacity for >charging the batteries' consumes gasoline that would not be consumed in a >non-hybrid vehicle. But it is consuming it more efficiently and you will get it back when the motor assists. >> Other posters have listed numerous reasons why hybrid systems increase >> efficiency. It could be all academic except that hybrid cars are at >> the top of the chart for high-milage gasoline road cars. > >Other than quoting MPG figures, not really. Do you have a better way of measuring the efficiency of a gasoline-only powered vehicle. >The only system that is a net + >is regenerative braking and, truth be told, it's not that big a deal. The >chart topping had much more to do with driving style & political posturing >than science. How does political posturing affect fuel efficiency? And what driving style do I have to adopt to get 46 mpg out of my GS-R? >>>Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control >>>these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Actually, the only source of energy is the Sun. Mother Nature just > converted a portion of the solar energy to oil for our convenience. I've always thought of it as a cruel hoax. <vbg> >>>>>I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >>>>>traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they talk to that > they have a "hybrid". And you know this how? > >> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of > >> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise > wouldn't. Not excatly, you can run the car on battery alone. But you will not get far on it. Some people have managed to alter the program on the car's CPU and allows it to run longer on battery and recharge it at night to get better mileage. A true gasoline car of the same displacment will not get that kind of mileage, but a hybrid will. >>>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >>>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > car's CPU and allows it to run longer on battery and recharge it at > night to get better mileage. How do they recharge it at night? > A true gasoline car of the same displacment will not get that kind of > mileage, but a hybrid will. The Prius and the Honda hybrid have only one external energy source which is gasoline. >>>>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >>>>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >How do they recharge it at night? They have retrofitted a line voltage charging system, an option available only if you have a hybrid system to start with. Manufacturers are considering adding this as standard equipment to their hybrid vehicles. >> A true gasoline car of the same displacment will not get that kind of >> mileage, but a hybrid will. > >The Prius and the Honda hybrid have only one external energy source which is >gasoline. Would you please explain why this fact, which absolutely no one has disputed, is relevant to this discussion? Either cite a production car which is more efficient than an Insight or concede that hybrid systems significantly improve fuel efficiency. > Either cite a production car which is more efficient than an Insight > or concede that hybrid systems significantly improve fuel efficiency. How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? > How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo, which would seem to be 54MPG US. Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG). What would a smart car get with a hybrid option? An Insight without the hybrid? Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What would a smart car get with a hybrid option? > An Insight without the hybrid? There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the US. >>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the >US. Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight? >>>>How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out > of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight? different strokes for different folks. isnt the smart supposed to be cheaper? then theres people like me who dont have a 2-car garage and dont drive much. id much rather have a smart and have room left over for 3 more motorcycles or scooters :) >>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out > of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight? The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions. > >>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets > 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions. The Smart as delivered in the USA will be a gasoline version. Canadians will get the diesel version. The EPA rating for the 2005 Insight M/T is 60/66, so 73 is a possiblity with careful driving. --Gene > The Smart as delivered in the USA will be a gasoline version. > Canadians will get the diesel version. Canadians _have_ the diesel version. > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets > 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions. That belies the "only source of energy" that you repeat frequently. It's oil, not diesel or gasoline, for the Smart and most other cars. I picked posted results for each because that would seem to be the folks from the hyper-miler class, squeezing miles out of their barrel of oil. I stayed with Canadian posts, so I could keep the Smart in context. There are hypermilers in the US that report 90MPG with the Insight. The Smart is estimated at 51/61 USMPG (and 19.8 seconds 0-60). The Insight is rated at 60/71 USMPG (and 10.6 seconds 0-60). Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the >> Insight gets 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The Smart is estimated at 51/61 USMPG (and 19.8 seconds 0-60). > The Insight is rated at 60/71 USMPG (and 10.6 seconds 0-60). What you're forgetting, typical for this thread, is that the Insight is not rated at 60/71 USMPG while doing 10.6 second 0-60 times. > What you're forgetting, typical for this thread, is that the Insight is not > rated at 60/71 USMPG while doing 10.6 second 0-60 times. Certainly you don't think that the Smart is getting 51mpg during the run? Why would you point out that the Insight doesn't get EPA rated mileage during an acceleration run unless it differs from the Smart car? Given that the Insight doesn't get good mileage during a 0-60 run, do you think it is better than the Smart during a 0-60 run, with the Smart taking twice as long for the run? Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> What you're forgetting, typical for this thread, is that the Insight >> is not rated at 60/71 USMPG while doing 10.6 second 0-60 times. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you think it is better than the Smart during a 0-60 run, with the > Smart taking twice as long for the run? Not after the first run or two which is about all you get before a battery recharge is required. Always ignored is the fact that hybrid efficiency drops dramatically with ambient temperature - another problem the Smart42 and plain old gasoline ICE cars don't have. This particular problem is mitigated by warming the batteries in the same way the passenger compartment is warmed. If it's cold outside, you can plan on hybrid ICEs running all the time - even in city driving. Same thing happens with the batteries get too warm except then they use A/C which, again, requires the ICE. > Not after the first run or two which is about all you get before a > battery recharge is required. Motor Trend did eight back to back runs to deplete the battery, and then they still got a 13.1 second 0-60. > Always ignored is the fact that hybrid efficiency drops dramatically with > ambient temperature - another problem the Smart42 and plain old gasoline > ICE cars don't have. I don't notice a drop in 20-30 degree weather. Dramatically colder climates might see different results. I do see a drop in MPG with the A/C running, whether in the summer to cool the car, or the winter to defrost. > This particular problem is mitigated by warming the batteries in the same > way the passenger compartment is warmed. If it's cold outside, you can > plan on hybrid ICEs running all the time - even in city driving. Same > thing happens with the batteries get too warm except then they use A/C > which, again, requires the ICE. The ICE does not auto-stop when it is cold. I haven't noticed that cause a drop in the mileage. I think its contribution is small for normal driving. It might be a plus in congested city traffic, but there I find that the Honda runs anyway, because it has to get up to 10mph before the auto-stop is enabled. There is no A/C for the batteries in a Honda. It gets a flow of air from the passenger compartment, whatever temp that might be. There is a separate cooling/heating unit in the Escape. I think it is a separate electric-driven unit, so it doesn't require the ICE to be running. I can hear it running after the ICE shuts off. I don't know that I would call it A/C, since it uses coolant and not freon. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >What you're forgetting, typical for this thread, is that the Insight is not >rated at 60/71 USMPG while doing 10.6 second 0-60 times. ??? This is a silly point. > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline The Dark Side of Diesel: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/answer.cfm?id=750&score=3228&text=N Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline > > The Dark Side of Diesel: > http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/answer.cfm?id=750&score=3228&text=N Hello, I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a picture of the "Smart" vehicle? I wanted to comment on those people that mentioned that want to develop a system where they can easily charge the batteries in their Hybrid vehicle. Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they might not be saving any money in the long run. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a > picture of the "Smart" vehicle? http://www.threepointmotors.com/smart/index.asp is a Canadian Dealer. > Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the > batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical > utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn > more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they > might not be saving any money in the long run. This is the subject of "well to wheel" comparisons. How much does it help, if any, to move the generation of the power from one place to another, including the inefficiencies in transport. Time of day metering might be mandatory for an Electric car owner, charging up at night. Solar power could be used for charging the electric vehicle, in a home setup. Nuclear/Geothermal/Hydro could be the source of the electricity, reducing the need for non-renewable and foreign resources. --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a >> picture of the "Smart" vehicle? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Nuclear/Geothermal/Hydro could be the source of the electricity, reducing >the need for non-renewable and foreign resources. Don't forget wind. >>>The Smart doesn't consume gasoline >> >>The Dark Side of Diesel: >>http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/answer.cfm?id=750&score=3228&text=N As a historian I would remind the NG that the ICE was seen as a clean alternative to horse power and the tons of manure the horses left on city streets every day. Manure was sticky mud when wet and choking coulds of dust when dry. >>>The Dark Side of Diesel: >>>http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/answer.cfm?id=750&score=3228&text=N > As a historian I would remind the NG that the ICE was seen as a clean > alternative to horse power and the tons of manure the horses left on > city streets every day. Manure was sticky mud when wet and choking > coulds of dust when dry. Replacing all of the cars currently on the road with an equivalent number of horses would lead to environmental problems very quickly. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>>>The Dark Side of Diesel: >>>>http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/answer.cfm?id=750&score=3228&text=N [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Replacing all of the cars currently on the road with an equivalent number > of horses would lead to environmental problems very quickly. especially if you consider my civic has 108 horsepower. that would be a long horsedrawn carriage. > especially if you consider my civic has 108 horsepower. that would be a > long horsedrawn carriage. Wouldn't be able to go 85, either. ;-)) >>>>The Dark Side of Diesel: >>>>http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/answer.cfm?id=750&score=3228&text=N [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Replacing all of the cars currently on the road with an equivalent number > of horses would lead to environmental problems very quickly. You bet! Not what I was suggesting, of course. Too expensive to convert all the gas stations to selling hay & oats, just for openers, plus there's a severe shortage of blacksmiths to keep the horses shod. >> > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a > picture of the "Smart" vehicle? Google owns you. smart.com >Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the >batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical >utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn >more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they >might not be saving any money in the long run. Electric wins out ... A pure electric vehicle might average 300-400 Wh/mile. Add charging inefficiency and it'll take a bit more, but let's use 400 Wh. My marginal electric is about $.07/kWh, so it's about $0.028/mi, or about 36 mi/$. Compare to gasoline at about 10 mi/$ ($2.40/gal and a 24 mpg car). Efficiencywise, using 41% average electrical efficiency, it's about 1 kWh(original fuel)/mi compared to about 1.6 for crude oil to the above car. But if everyone did it, we'd have to up our electrical capacity by quite a bit! ( I don't think just off peak charging would do it). >>>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets >73 US MPG irrespective of conditions. Do you think the Smart gets 54 mpg irrespective of conditions? In California u can get a Civic NGV and get an NGV home refueling appliance installed to get a low-pressure fill from your house natural gas line. That's good for about 100 mi -- for a complete fill-up you have to go to NGV station. One driver/HOV lane eligible, less pollution, more supply + tax rebate (but fuel not much less $$). But since carpool lane might open to Hybrids it isn't very popular. Plus there isn't much trunk space. Signatureabcvtec Discussions from http://fitfreak.net > In California u can get a Civic NGV and get an NGV home refueling > appliance installed to get a low-pressure fill from your house natural [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since carpool lane might open to Hybrids it isn't very popular. Plus > there isn't much trunk space. The home fueling option is very recent. Prior to that, I can understand why there was very little market outside government agencies. There is no natural gas in my area, so it isn't helpful to me. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What would a smart car get with a hybrid option? > An Insight without the hybrid? or a diesel hybrid insight? >>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > or a diesel hybrid insight? Honda would get more than it's worth. A plan would be to wait a couple of years. If the smart42 turns out to be reliable and we get it in the states, I'd buy one in a hearbeat. >>>>>> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of >>>>>> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Manufacturers are considering adding this as standard equipment to > their hybrid vehicles. Which does nothing but move the pollution upstream and make it virtually impossible to accurately calculate MPG. >>> A true gasoline car of the same displacment will not get that kind >>> of mileage, but a hybrid will. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would you please explain why this fact, which absolutely no one has > disputed, is relevant to this discussion? Sure. Inserting a series of extra energy conversions isn't a typical path to improved efficiency. Increased efficiency leads to greater MPG. > Either cite a production car which is more efficient than an Insight > or concede that hybrid systems significantly improve fuel efficiency. I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by creating and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big improve at all. Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid, they veil the truth in a bunch of marketing crapola. > I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have > sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by creating just YOUR opinion. one of the interesting features on the newer prius is a "thermos" type coolant storage chamber, designed to keep engine coolant warm long after the car has been shut off. this aids the GASOLINE engine in cold weather starts, by helping the GASOLINE engine get to operating temp quicker with fewer emissions, and can be applied to other GASOLINE engines as well. > and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big improve at all. > Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid, they veil the truth in > a bunch of marketing crapola. oh, dont get all pissy because the japanese are actually spending money on R&D, while the USA car companies trot out another shitty truck-based land yacht. >I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have >sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by creating >and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big improve at all. >Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid, they veil the truth in >a bunch of marketing crapola. FanJet, you obviously know a fair amount, but even more obvious, your mind is made up You are not going to be swayed by either the actual data (ex: mpg of Civic Hybrid vs Civic, mpg of Prius compared to any other like-size and performing vehicle), or by technical arguments (you haven't responded to my post where I list FOUR ways that hybrid design improves mpg). You also seem to see a lot of conspiracies (the above, and auto OEM's "insisting" that we use 5/20 oil). As to wall-plug hybrids, I'm pretty sure they come out ahead of the game in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency. Consider: Well-to-electric efficiency (US Mix) ~ 41% Round trip battery efficiency (charge-discharge) 80-90% Motor efficiency ~85% Multiply all three for the wallplug hybrid: 28-31% Compare to a typical ICE on a normal drive: ~20% Plus the electric is from a variety of sources, not just crude oil, which is a benefit for "energy independence" (which is a bit of a pipe dream, but that's another debate). Yes, there is hype with hybrids. Big surprise, there is hype with most products and new technologies, both for and against. Yeah, it isn't a free lunch. But I do think it is quite clear that hybrids can increase fuel economy by say 20-30% across the board, and often quite a bit more. Again, at some cost ($, mass, complexity). So no, it might not be a slam-dunk. But I'd say it is a legitimate choice and I welcome the increased availability. >> I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have >> sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a lot of conspiracies (the above, and auto OEM's "insisting" that > we use 5/20 oil). I missed your 4 point post but recently replied. To be clear, I rather like the Prius and might consider purchasing one. I like gadgets and that'd be the reason for the purchase. I'd probably spend much time enhancing performance (driving style wise) and would probably post some impressive MPG figures. Nothing much more to say about 5/20 oil. The manufacturers made the change, told us it was for improved fuel economy which, as you noted, it doesn't deliver. I just reported the change. > As to wall-plug hybrids, I'm pretty sure they come out ahead of the > game in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency. Consider: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Multiply all three for the wallplug hybrid: 28-31% > Compare to a typical ICE on a normal drive: ~20% Way too many variables for me to deal with now. > Plus the electric is from a variety of sources, not just crude oil, > which is a benefit for "energy independence" (which is a bit of a > pipe dream, but that's another debate). Depends on location. I'm not overly fond of coal fired generation either but it's got to come from somewhere. > Yes, there is hype with hybrids. Big surprise, there is hype with > most products and new technologies, both for and against. Yeah, it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no, it might not be a slam-dunk. But I'd say it is a legitimate > choice and I welcome the increased availability. I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would make dealerships very wealthy indeed. > I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd > popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would > make dealerships very wealthy indeed. im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated "retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant company importing it? >> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the >> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant > company importing it? I think you'll have them next year. Smarts are sold and serviced in Mercedes Benz dealerships, at least in Ottawa. Smart Cars are a wholly owned subsidiary of MB. The first car sold in 1998. >>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the >>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Ottawa. Smart Cars are a wholly owned subsidiary of MB. The first car sold >in 1998. I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand. BTW, the diesel Smart sold in Canada has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 sec! >>>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the >>>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > BTW, the diesel Smart sold in Canada has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 sec! Yep. And 95 a litre regular gas! The can't keep them in stock. >I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always >a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a >year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the >brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser >since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand. Otoh, there's at least one municipal fleet that's looking at forcing the issue by purchasing a couple of hundred of them. No decision yet... (keep in mind that 99% or so of city worker driving doesn't need anything larger than the Schmarrrt Kar). Oh.. and that lovable curmodgeon from CBS's "Sixty Minutes", Andy Rooney, test drove around NYC a couple of months ago. I made a QuickTime version of his clip and posted it at: http://www.panix.com/~dannyb/video/schmart-car-cdr.mov Note: it's about 16 megs in size... (which is larger than the car...) Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] >> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the >> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant > company importing it? Sweet Jesus,...I want this one! http://www.motorsm.com/collection/photos/SMART_ROADSTER_SL.jpg > Sweet Jesus,...I want this one! > http://www.motorsm.com/collection/photos/SMART_ROADSTER_SL.jpg Definitely cute, but it would be a royal PITA to keep the headlights clear in heavy snow. Would need some sort of a cover, for sure. But then not too many folks in snowy climates would go for a convertable, I guess. Oh, here's a good site for gov't real world test results of various HEV's: avt.inel.gov/hev.shtml >>>I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the >>>odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sweet Jesus,...I want this one! > http://www.motorsm.com/collection/photos/SMART_ROADSTER_SL.jpg Looks like a Porsche 914 with a shave and a haircut. ;) >>> How do they recharge it at night? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Which does nothing but move the pollution upstream and make it virtually >impossible to accurately calculate MPG. So let me get this straight. You keep whining that hybrids don't have any energy source but gasoline, but when someone tells you about a hybrid which does have a second energy source, you whine about that too. If they got 5% of their energy from hydrocarbons emitted into the air by vehicle refueling, would you complain that they were stealing your gas? >>>> How do they recharge it at night? >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the air by vehicle refueling, would you complain that they were > stealing your gas? Needing to repeatedly point out the obvious isn't whining and charging batteries via house wiring isn't new. Sniffing gas fumes would be humorous but you'd need a permanent connection for figures like you're guessing - about as practical as an extension cord for your hybrid. >The current edition of "Car and Driver" (magazine) has an >interesting article about the dark side of the hybrids on page 26. >The date on the cover is September 2005. > >If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle, >I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. So could someone please summarize this dirty little secret? > So could someone please summarize this dirty little secret? http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=9489 The hybrid portion is filled with diatribe and a few factoids. http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/030705.html Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > So could someone please summarize this dirty little secret? http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=9489 The hybrid portion is filled with diatribe and a few factoids. Other than the negative spin that Yates is deliberately putting on it, I don't see any misstatements. The hybrid market is small. Yates cites the wonderful surveys from J.D.Powers. As a J.D.Powers member, I see that the surveys are all whatever the buyer of the survey wants them to be. He says all of the hybrids cost more to manufacture than the sales premium, and that manufacturers are losing money on them. Toyota says that's not true, but it has been questioned. The MPG goes down when you run the A/C. That is surprisingly true. The MPG drops a couple of miles per gallon with the load of A/C. It's a small percentage, that isn't noticed when your H2 is only getting 8mpg to begin with, but a 5% drop at 50mpg is noticeable. Plus the hybrid owners are paying attention. Brock is trying to ignore his mileage, A/C or not. http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/030705.html Fareed's article is dismissed with an italicized "voila 500mpg!", knowing full well that it must be false. I doubt if he even read the article beyond the mention of methanol. It is a spin. 500mpg of Gasoline. But there are other components. And it is a speech that President Bush "could make tomorrow". It is not a statement that such a thing does exist, although he does explore it. "Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless <and independent> advocate of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.) " The comment about ethanol and methanol being cheaper is dubious. I tend to agree with Brock on that one, unless the production becomes ubiquitous, reducing the transportation costs. I think plug-in hybrids are the way to go. My Ford Escape Hybrid would run the gas engine for the required few minutes every day, but would run electric-only every workday, plugging in to my home solar power system for recharging at night. The ICE would still be there for needed additional power, or for long trips. I could easily get 500mpg of gasoline with no other energy source but the sun. The upfront cost might be high, but I personally don't care about that. I will amortize today's purchase price over a period of many years to eliminate my need for foreign oil. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >I think plug-in hybrids are the way to go. My Ford Escape Hybrid would >run the gas engine for the required few minutes every day, but would run [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >personally don't care about that. I will amortize today's purchase price >over a period of many years to eliminate my need for foreign oil. Thanks for the summaries. The 500 mpg of gasoline is a little contrived in that one could easily run the car on 100% methanol and no gasoline at all. The only problem is that recent analysis indicates that these bio fuels consume more fossil fuel than they replace. The plug-in hybrid is a good idea and will hasten the arrival of the day when hybrids do make economic sense. >The current edition of "Car and Driver" (magazine) has an >interesting article about the dark side of the hybrids on page 26. >The date on the cover is September 2005. > >If you own a hybrid vehicle or plan to buy a hybrid vehicle, >I advise you to buy a copy of the magazine and read the article. OK I read it. Reminds me of why I usually skip Yates' editorials. Other than raising the red herring of battery disposal and drawing meaningless comparisons to electric cars, the "dark side" is entirely based on the well known and widely reported fact that these vehicles will not pay for themselves in fuel savings. According to Wards' analysis, gas would have to be $10/gal for a Prius to pay for it's higher cost compared to a Corolla. So what? Why must a hybrid be justified only on economic grounds? Why compare a Prius with a Corolla? Why not compare an Insight with a Corvette? Both have similar passenger and luggage capacity. In many, perhaps most circumstances the Insight will even be as fast as the Corvette. So how long will it take for the much more expensive Corvette to pay for itself? For now at least, hybrid buyers are not buying based on economics any more than Corvette buyers are. They like high milage bragging rights, environmental conservation and the message their car sends. However, to move into the mainstream, the cars will have to make economic sense. Economies of scale should bring down the cost. Or gas may go to $10. Hydrogen is a pipe dream. It might be a reality some day but we are going to conserve our oil if we are going to make it there. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.