Review Of GM's HyWire Hydrogen Concept Car

Slashdot had a concept Methane PT Cruiser once by krog · 2003-01-13 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny

but then CowboiNeal ran out of beans, so they ran out of fuel.

--
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder

Re:Slashdot had a concept Methane PT Cruiser once by PD · 2003-01-13 09:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Wouldn't that vehicle be more efficient in a rocket configuration?

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.

Hand brakes? by delphin42 · 2003-01-13 08:50 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I don't consider adding to the number of tasks performed by my hands to be an engineering acheivement. Why don't they work on steering with your feet? Then I could have both hands free while driving.

--
-- Adam

Re:Hand brakes? by override11 · 2003-01-13 08:52 · Score: 5, Funny

So you can read AND eat while driving??? Watch the road!!!

--
No I didnt spell check this post...
Re:Hand brakes? by Ananamas+Coughrad · 2003-01-13 09:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Eventually, when auto technology becomes perfectly tuned to the environment, there will be holes in the floor and you will be both driving and steering with your feet. So rest assured, your idea is being worked on.
Re:Hand brakes? by banzai51 · 2003-01-13 09:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Using any console racing game will only re-enforce this. Please, oh please don't move the "gas" and brake pedels to my hands. My first thought when I first saw GM's vehical is what happens when I'm crusing down the street then reach to change the radio station? I stop accelerating? Let's just hope that they find a way to get the costs down and then remember to sell it to us in the US.
Re:Hand brakes? by RocketScientist · 2003-01-13 09:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah, I really don't like the interface in the prototype. Fortunately, it's skinnable also. So you can have a car with pedals. Part of the review says that it'll be a better car without pedals because the steering wheel will have a better range of motion. However, if you are handicapped and missing legs or something this would provide a great deal of independence I'd think.

I was pretty impressed with the performance specs. 97+ MPH out of 130ish horespower is not bad. When they can pull 200 HP out of it and have 4 wheel drive (more for safe delivery of power than offroad, think Audi Quattro not Land Rover) and you'll have something I'll want to buy. Oh, and 250-300 mile range would be good also.

Begs the question of "how do you measure fuel economy". MPG (or L/100Km) is a bit off, unless you measure the capacity at STP. I think we need to go to a straightforward percentage (how many joules were liberated and how much forward momentum/sec was generated).
Re:Hand brakes? by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 09:19 · Score: 5, Funny

"there will be holes in the floor and you will be both driving and steering with your feet"

Ah yes, a page from the infamous Flintstones Big Book of Engineering.

Too bad they couldn't prevent the cars from tipping over when you slap a rack of Brontosaurus ribs on the driver's side door.
Re:Hand brakes? by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 09:21 · Score: 2

"97+ MPH out of 130ish horespower is not bad."

Uh, yeah it is. Honda's been making cars that'll do 120mph with less than 90hp for decades. 97mph is a joke. Then again, I've never fully understood why cars in the US can go 120mph which is double the old national speed limit.
Re:Hand brakes? by sql*kitten · 2003-01-13 09:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Uh, yeah it is. Honda's been making cars that'll do 120mph with less than 90hp for decades. 97mph is a joke. Then again, I've never fully understood why cars in the US can go 120mph which is double the old national speed limit.

Because infernal combustion engines and their associated machinery like gearboxes aren't efficient when run near the upper or lower limits of their capability, but in the middle. Upper is defined here as maximum rpm, not torque (which occurs closer to the middle rpm), and lower is the idle rpm. Car gearboxes aren't like aero engines; there is a direct relationship between engine rpm and wheel rpm via the gearbox.

If you want a car that runs well at 60mph, you have to built one that peaks at 120.
Re:Hand brakes? by RocketScientist · 2003-01-13 09:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, but the honda weighs a lot less. Keep in mind, this thing's the size of a Cadillac DeVille, not a shoebox Honda. Serious room for 5 full sized passengers. And it's a constant torque curve, so it'll accelerate like crazy (which is really the reason I want the 4WD). Internal combustion engines generate torque (and HP) as their RPM's increase. Fuel cells use electric motors, which have the same torque at 10 RPM as they do at 10,000 RPM.

To turn your argument around, I've got a 1 HP engine in a radio controlled car, and it'll do 60. Some others will do 85 with not much more power. So Honda's not living up to that standard! How dare they produce inefficient cars that take 90 HP to get to 120 MPH.
Re:Hand brakes? by banzai51 · 2003-01-13 09:39 · Score: 2

Technically, braking is accleration. Negitave accleration. Besides, ever here of friction?
Re:Hand brakes? by Alien+Being · 2003-01-13 09:46 · Score: 2

...why cars in the US can go 120mph

To be able to stay in front of the trucks ;-)

60MPH sounds like a reasonable top speed, up a 50% grade!
Re:Hand brakes? by btempleton · 2003-01-13 10:04 · Score: 2

You measure fuel economy by weight, not by volume.

Ie. km/kg of hydrogen (or metres/gram, it would be the same!)

I always found it annoying that metric fuel economies were done in a reciprocal fashion, liters/100km. Aside from reversing everybody's sense of things making it more difficult to head convert, people like "larger number is better" most of the time.

--
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Re:Hand brakes? by dhartman · 2003-01-13 10:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Umm, last I checked 'negative acceleration' as you call it was termed DE-celeration. So technically, in future transportation pods, we would want an acceleration event and a deceleration event. These events could be handled by your hands as described in this article, your feet as in conventional cars or by voice (or telepathy).
Just thinking that you should be going faster would make the car speed up. Or if you're that woman driving the car pool with the satellite receiver and you yell, "you kids shut up or I'll stop this car", you might be lucky enough for the car to interpret "stop this car" as a command to stop immediately. At this point, all people end up flying through the windshield with Ms. Twinkie ass jammed behind the steering wheel because she wouldn't FIT through the window...
Re:Hand brakes? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-13 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Geez, people. Many of you are acting like you have never even seen a morotcycle. Left hand is clutch (both for the transmission and for hanging on) and the right hand was throttle and main brakes. You steer with both hands.

Works great.
Re:Hand brakes? by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 10:34 · Score: 4, Informative

"Internal combustion engines generate torque (and HP) as their RPM's increase"

Well that's all up to the transmission, displacement, and a few other factors. Most cars generate peak torque low in the rpm range and higher horsepower as the rpms increase. Nearly every VTEC equipped Honda will generate peak torque around 3000-3500 rpms, while the peak hp comes at redline in each gear. On the other hand, your garden variety Subaru Impreza WRX generates peak torque at a low low 2200rpm, and peak hp near 6000rpm.

At any rate, comparing rc cars to full sized vehicles is just a ruse. Thanks for the insight.
Re:Hand brakes? by RocketScientist · 2003-01-13 10:37 · Score: 2

One would suggest that comparing an economy sedan to a cadillac would equally be a ruse.
Re:Hand brakes? by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 10:43 · Score: 2

Oh yeah? I'll find this...this "one" and give him a good 'what for'.
Re:Hand brakes? by gl4ss · 2003-01-13 10:48 · Score: 2

..well technically deceleration is too acceleration.. just in different direction.. any change of speed is..

but, if you got both brakes and gas pedal on your wheel, maybe it make people to NOT LET GO OF THE DRIVING WHEEL WHILE DRIVING... 'reach for the radio while i'm accelerating..' geez..('yes i can very well do two things at once thank for your consideration but i'm not a stupid monkey who cant keep his eyes off the road while adjusting radio', the thing is, you still probably will make at least a glance at the radio, either to check station or it's exact whereabouts..)

anyways.. if you got both hands on the wheel, and theres 'pedals' behind the wheen like in some computer game, you dont have to first lift your foot from gas pedal and move it over the brakes and then press them..

and you know what? disabled people been driving with 'hand gas' for ages.

for it to be voice controlled the car would have to have the iq of a cab driver..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Hand brakes? by Jason+Earl · 2003-01-13 10:54 · Score: 2

The real problem isn't the performance. The real problem is that it would cost a quarter of a million dollars to purchase. For that amount of money I can buy Hondas for myself and all five of my prospective passengers and still have enough cash lying around for a good sized house (in my neck of the woods). Oh, and I wouldn't actually be able to refuel the darn thing.
Other than that, this baby is golden.
Re:Hand brakes? by Sethb · 2003-01-13 13:14 · Score: 2

I'm in Iowa, so that's how I know, but farmers have been driving with hand-throttles on their tractors for several decades. I learned to drive tractor on an International H, we don't need no sissy foot-pedal throttle!

--
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Re:Hand brakes? by canadian_right · 2003-01-13 16:26 · Score: 2

The aerodynamics of the car sets its stop speed. Once you get going it's the wheels rolling resistance and the air-resistance that the engine has to overcome to reach its top speed. you only need huge amounts of horsepower to have large acceleration. If you are very, very patient, I'm sure you can get to 100mph with much less horsepower.

--
Anarchists never rule
Re:Hand brakes? by canadian_right · 2003-01-13 16:31 · Score: 2

Aerodynamics controls your top speed on a long straight highway. Lots of horsepower is only to get you up to highway speeds in a reasonable time. Once up to speed the engine only has to overcome rolling resistance and air resistance. you you are very patient, and have a very low air-restant car you can reach 100mpg with much less than 90hp.

--
Anarchists never rule
Re:Hand brakes? by horza · 2003-01-13 20:21 · Score: 2

My first thought when I first saw GM's vehical is what happens when I'm crusing down the street then reach to change the radio station?

You must be driving a pretty prehistoric car. All the cars I've driven in the past few years, you can control the radio directly from the steering wheel.

Plus in the UK, the highway code states that you should have both hands on the steering wheel at all times except to change gears. Though a lot of the top-end cars now use Tiptronic where you change gears using buttons on the steering wheel.

Hmmm, I'd get back and practice on the gamepad if I were you.

Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Hand brakes? by AlecC · 2003-01-13 21:05 · Score: 2

But look at fighter planes, where the military do *lots* of ergonomic testing and have a real incentive to get it as good as it gets. Yes, they still have rudder pedals, but they are hardly used in most flying modes. On the other hand, the joystick is covered with buttons - not only throttle and steering, but targeting computer, weapons selection, fire button, communications... You can bet that they have tries a lot of alternatives, so my guess is that hand control goes pretty well.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Hand brakes? by Technician · 2003-01-14 01:38 · Score: 2

Begs the question of "how do you measure fuel economy".
Simple. Look at the word economy. It's as simple a comparing propane, gas, diesel, etc. How much does it cost to go a mile. Any other measure is not important. They advertise MPG only because the price pre gallon is not standard.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Hand brakes? by mark_lybarger · 2003-01-14 01:47 · Score: 2

i think the same thing would happen to your left foot while driving an manual transmission vehicle in 2mph traffic. the problem isn't the vehicle engineering obviously. motorcycles stll use 2 arms and 2 feet to operate, just things are placed a little differently as you're quite aware of i'm sure.
Re:Hand brakes? by matrix29 · 2003-01-14 06:54 · Score: 2

Yeah, I really don't like the interface in the prototype. Fortunately, it's skinnable also. So you can have a car with pedals. Part of the review says that it'll be a better car without pedals because the steering wheel will have a better range of motion. However, if you are handicapped and missing legs or something this would provide a great deal of independence I'd think.

Unless you lack hands and are typing this with one of your other many appendages. Hey, if it isn't too expensive a "steer by foot" option could be made available. Of course if you want to REALLY picky in this day and age it is possible to have digitally accurate analog control buttons, levers, knobs, toggles, etc... all hooked up to spots and wired or radio emitting anywhere in the driver's side vehicle area. Just think of the Playstation analog interactivity and combine that with the optional positions of a wireless mouse.

Granted straight wire hookups are much safer to say the least, but it is possible now and inexpensively functional to create a modular setup in which a disabled person could drive by their elbows, kneecaps, pinkie toe on their left foot, or even their tongue. Yes this massive modularity would not appeal to most folks, but when your standard arm & leg count is fewer than 4 total these little blessings come as a great mobility improver (and no, I do not want someone with lousy reflexes or low mental functioning or depth perception driving regardless of the technology that can work around that. It is just too damn unsafe to let someone with chronic shakes tool around town. Missing limbs is no big deal if the tech & driver can work around the differences.)

I've got all of the body parts granted to the standard human, but if I ended up losing some later in life I would prefer the option of self-driving still to be open to all that are capable of clear thought and vision and reflexes.

--
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
Re:Hand brakes? by Jason+Earl · 2003-01-14 15:00 · Score: 2

I realize that the price of these cars will drop as they are mass produced, but by how much? The hybrid cars that they are producing now are based on existing body and drivetrain models and they still demand a premium. These wacky cars have almost nothing in common with current models, which means that mass production of these vehicles will require entirely new factories and the expensive retraining of factory workers. In short, no one is going to be mass producing these babies until the are sure that they will compete with standard internal combustion engines. It isn't going to be enough that their only by-product is water, especially in third world countries like China.
The funniest part of the whole article was the idea that these vehicles might take off in China. Having lived for some time in the third world (five years in South America) I can guarantee that the Chinese aren't going to go for these vehicles unless they are significantly less expensive than internal combustion vehicles. Heck, the best selling car in Peru, to this day, is the Volkswagon Beetle--and I am not talking about the new one, I am talking about the one based on WWII technology. The reason, these cars are easy to fix and require almost no special tools. They also require no fancy parts that need to be imported. More importantly they are inexpensive to purchase. That's the technology that these hyrdogen cars are going to have to compete against if they want to get into the Chinese market, and my guess is that they are going to fail miserably.
The whole fuel issue is nothing more than a red herring really. If these cars were cheaper than normal cars, then Hyrdogen refueling zones would pop up all over. After all, Hyrdogen is pretty easy to produce. A little electricity and some water and you are golden. Of course, that doesn't really solve the environmental problems with cars, since you still end up burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity, but it's almost certainly an improvement over millions of internal combustion engines.
Personally I am very skeptical of GM's whole project. My guess is that they are primarily doing this as a tax incentive and a PR stunt. As the automotive world's top dog they have the smallest incentive to really shake things up. For this sort of a project to really work it needs to be aimed at the low end of the car market, and not the luxury end.
The fact of the matter is that gas really isn't that expensive when compared with the price of a car. This is especially true in countries where it isn't taxed to death. The Chinese couldn't care less about the environment. They are currently lining their streams with our cast off computers for crying out loud. The last thing that they are likely to worry about is car emissions. For them it is going to be all about price, and these hyrdogen cars aren't even in the running.

interesting auto by greechneb · 2003-01-13 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not only the drive-by-wire, brake-by-wire, steer-by-wire, docking connection; but the car is also skinnable! - Just what every geek wants, a skinnable interface. read here

As for the drive by wire, brake by wire, does that mean we will finally have real "backseat drivers"?

Re:interesting auto by blitziod · 2003-01-13 09:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok check this out. Cornering and breaking will be determined by software. Does this mean that you will get a license agreement for your car? So we will all be driving corvettes, but they will be tuned to drive like pintos unless we but the upgrade? Will third party/open source be legal for these cars?

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:interesting auto by M.C.+Hampster · 2003-01-13 10:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

More mods on crack I see.

Cornering and breaking will be determined by software. Does this mean that you will get a license agreement for your car?

Of course not, this is just silly. Think of how much stuff you use that is powered by either build in software or embeddeded devices. Do you get a license agreement with them?

So we will all be driving corvettes, but they will be tuned to drive like pintos unless we but the upgrade

Again, of course not. Many parts of the automobile are already controlled by embedded hardware, making the jump to software is no big deal. They already have the ability to stick a chip in your car to limit its speed, but they don't. Why not? Because it's stupid.

Will third party/open source be legal for these cars?

Ah, so this is why this has been marked as "insightful". Make any positive, but retarded remark about open source and get modded up.

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.

user interface by stinky+wizzleteats · 2003-01-13 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ah, so the familiar motion of going for the horn might produce either a burst of acceleration or a sudden stop. Is the horn on the floor?

Re:user interface by swordboy · 2003-01-13 09:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I think that you aren't completely understanding where the gas and brakes are going to be located. They will be adding them to the Swiss Army Blinker(tm) that we've all come to know and love. Hmmm... Lessee... Gas... No, thats washer fluid...

Actually, if they were to replace the steering wheel with a set of handlebars (ala motorcycle), then they might be able to pull this off. Of course, then you've just invented the four wheel version of the Tron Light Cycle.

Hmmm...

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Re:user interface by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 10:41 · Score: 4, Funny

"Of course, then you've just invented the four wheel version of the Tron Light Cycle."

It'll bring a whole new dimension of fun and entertainment to cutting people off in traffic.
Re:user interface by xixax · 2003-01-13 12:55 · Score: 3, Funny

Nice to see the same principles that gave us schizophrenic computer UIs being applied to large lumps of metal moving at high speed. Can't wait for:

Microsoft LookOut! which will remember the last place I drove to and keep taking me there unless I re-install it.

Lexmark Premium DiHydrogen Monoxide service pak, which will refuse to let me pull into service stations not owned by Lexmark.

The RIAA approved theft prevention radio that accepts my credit card number as the PIN and decides a listening program based on my revenue profile.

The GTA3 augmented reality patch that overlays cool stuff on my external visual screens.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

Sure the efficiency is great... by JimmyBigFish · 2003-01-13 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

But why does it have to be so damn ugly?? Is that the company's way of making sure the thing doesn't get accepted??

If it's ugly, the consumers won't like it and thus the whole concept will be proven to be unacceptable... hmmm...

WTF?

Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-13 09:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Let's ignore the obvious problems inherent in this design (brake/accelerator location) due to going against the driver's intuition and previous experience. They were just trying to catch the eye by making some oddball design choices.

Engineering-wise, this has some impressive shit inside, if not entirely innovative. It's certainly a noteworthy achievment. Sure, it's really not that cutting edge, instead it's just an aggregation and refinement of stuff that's been done already.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here (and will be modded down for it, of course), but here goes...

Does anyone else miss real cars? Aren't you sick of these underpowered, jellybean-looking, rice-burning, gook specials out there? Do all the new electrics and hybrids need to go down the same path?

Don't you miss that 2-tons of Detroit steel, the kind of car that can register on the Richter scale on ignition?

Why does the vision of the future have to be so passified? Why can't it be kind of rugged? I'd feel pretty damned fruity (ala Ed Begly Jr) driving around in one of these plastic-turds.

So, yes, I'll give them some credit for the engineering. And, yes, it's a somewhat noble cause. But, can't these designs still be fun? Why do they all have to conform to some worn-out template of how a car of the future should look? C'mon, just a little creativity and passion would be appreciated... stupid fuckwads.

Who wants to bet there's a pointy-haired manager responsible for the aesthetics (probably the one that gave the quote in the parent post)? The conversation probably sounded something like this:

Designer - "Here's our new electric vehicle."
Management-Jerkoff - "But... that looks like a regular car."
Designer - "Um, well, yeah... we didn't want to alienate our customers."
Management-Jerkoff - "But, how will anyone know it's electric if it looks like just any other car?"

Don't they realize, if these things didn't stick out so much, they'd sell more? Most people don't want to look like a dork in one of these (yes, /.ers do want to look like that, but most "normal" people don't). I'd love an electric that could capture the look & feel of a 1972 Mach 1 Mustang (constructed in 1971, of course) or a nice old GTO (not a big fan of the Judge though), I would miss the sound on an electric though.

There's a very heavy user interaction (look & feel) component that goes into choosing a car. These companies insist on alienating their consumers from the hybrid/electric market by making their cars look rather goofy. They're futuristic, but goofy nonetheless.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by tomalok · 2003-01-13 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would miss the sound on an electric though.

You know, maybe they'll have a "sounds like a real car" option too... And you'd be able to download different soundpacks depending if you want it to sound like anything from a Model T to a commercial jetliner... shouldn't be that difficult to gauge what's happening on those wires and play/tweak the correct sounds.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by SectoidRandom · 2003-01-13 10:30 · Score: 2

Ignoring the 'ugly' remark (that's entirely subjective, not that I dont agree with you) this design looks like every other new Honda / Renault / Hyuandai (See Renault Scenic for eg) that hit's the road today! I don't see anything new here except for the fact that it makes optimal use of the lack of engine compartment. It is a concept car after all, so it needs to make obvious the new concepts..

Of course the fact that the whole car is essentially "skinnable" says a lot.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by uradu · 2003-01-13 10:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

> Don't you miss that 2-tons of Detroit steel [...]?

No. Not everyone finds American classic cars attractive. I myself find none of the American classics nice looking, with the possible exception of the original (underpowered) Corvette. It's all the more sobering to know what hunks of garbage they were in anything but straight-line drags, ridiculously humongous horsepower notwithstanding.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by SectoidRandom · 2003-01-13 10:50 · Score: 2

Let's firstly ignore the fact that the whole idea behind this "concept" is that you can after purchasing this car go out and stick on that "Authentic 1972 Mustang" skin, including annoying noise generator for the complete package.

But when it comes to "what normal people want" as you claim to know, I disagree that all of those people outside my window (city office Sydney / Aust) driving the tiny Honda's, Kia's, Holden's and whatever were so how forced into making those purchases. The fact is for a significant proportion of the population here in Australia and no doubt over there in the US, a small compact car is the only smart choice!

Now I believe Australia has a very similar obsession to you American's with big cars and gas guzzlers, probably not so extreme though, but this concept is by far the best new idea i have read about when it comes to fuel cell cars, I can see that if this does take off it would please just about everyone! And well anyone left over in 10 years in their Original '72 Mustang, well they can happily go on paying $15.69 / litre for their fuel. That wont bother me..
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by sean23007 · 2003-01-13 11:39 · Score: 2

I would miss the sound on an electric though.

You could install like a megaphone thing with a sound byte of an old V8 revving up. The problem, of course, is that people would come up to you at red lights and want to drag race. How stupid would you feel if your GTO could only do 0-60 in 15 seconds?

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by NetFu · 2003-01-13 12:25 · Score: 2

The problem is that you are sitting in Sydney, not in the country/outback. Do people in the outback drive little POS japanese/korean cars? I'd be surprised if they do.

Here in America (I grew up in South Dakota and now live for 12 years in San Jose, CA), city dwellers tend to like smaller cars, but nowhere near what the sardines in Europe and Japan/Korea like. We have way too many SUV/Pickup drivers here in California cities, IMO, but we still accomodate them.

But, the stark difference between rural Americans and urban Americans is that rural Americans faithfully buy relatively big American cars because:

1. It's American
2. They generally have lots of room and very little traffic/parking

Even today, when I go back to South Dakota, there are virtually NO foreign cars anywhere -- good luck finding a VW or Honda dealership, let alone a Subaru or BMW dealership (maybe one or two token dealerships in each state). So, small size or gas usage is not an issue for most Americans (that would be rich Americans and rural Americans which, IMHO, make up the majority of Americans). As you saw in the last Presidential elections, urban Americans do NOT generally make up the majority here (statistically, most urban Americans voted for Gore, which was why it was so close). There are a lot of rural Americans who will look at this GM car and never buy it -- they'll stick with the XYZ SUV bigger than most urban garages.

So, this original poster does represent a lot of Americans. Even here in California, I don't see many electric or hybrid cars at all. I just don't think they (or you, obviously) understand what most Americans are saying -- we generally want the same cars as we had before, but if you change them, make them look cool, not dorky.

In America, our cars mean a lot more to us than they do to people in most other countries.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 13:26 · Score: 2

Just build it to match the Lexus prototype in Minority Report. It'll sell billions.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by ces · 2003-01-13 14:10 · Score: 2

...but by whitey casper milquetoast GM itself, the inventor of the minivan I remind you.

Not sure who "invented" the minivan but Chrysler is credited with popularizing them. GM's answer to the Voyager for a number of years was the rather lame Astro. VW's microbus pre-dates the modern minivan by a couple of decades but it wasn't exactly being bought by suburban soccer moms.

--
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by Jeremi · 2003-01-13 14:18 · Score: 2

Not necessarily all that stupid... as I understand it, one of the advantages of an electric motor over a gas engine is that the electric motor can accelerate quickly from a stop. So for drag racing over short distances, you'll be all set...

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by sean23007 · 2003-01-13 14:33 · Score: 2

To be honest, I don't think any electric car can compete with a sports car or a muscle car in any kind of race, unless one of the rules for that race is that no gasoline can be used...

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by PyroMosh · 2003-01-13 20:28 · Score: 2

I wasn't aware of this, so thanks for the parent post for pointing it out, but here is the car I think the parent is refering to.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by Bazzargh · 2003-01-13 23:20 · Score: 2

That idea was patented last year... spotted it in New Scientist.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by hcdejong · 2003-01-14 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

No, I don't miss those 2-ton Detroit steel barges. Mainly because they don't handle, but also because they're criminally inefficient.
About the looks: this isn't the only concept car that's come out of Detroit recently. There were several that should be more to your liking. The Ford 'Tonka' pickup, for example (even more monstrous than current offerings), Dodge had another 'full size' pickup, and they were both shown with alternative propulsion (the Ford was Diesel-electric, and the Dodge used LNG, IIRC).
The HyWire mainly looks goofy because it can. It's not only a hydrogen-power prototype, it shows off an entirely different way of building cars. Why stick that underneath some bog-standard undistinctive bodyshell?
Once this technology goes mainstream, you can bet there'll be body styles to suit everyone.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by Dman33 · 2003-01-14 02:44 · Score: 2

Man, I wish I had the ability to pay for all that gas... of course, if I lived in Flint, I could.

I guess it is all about priorities. My Nissan can do slalom much better than your tank, and I like swerving and 'threading the needle' in rush hour traffic. Where I live, you cannot get up to 120+ mph without making some 'strategic maneuvering' due to traffic. That is also why I do not go to the drag track, I would have no fun. To each, his own.
Re:Sure the efficiency is great... by hcdejong · 2003-01-14 23:01 · Score: 2

It's either Renault (Espace) or Mitsubishi (Space Wagon) that introduced the modern minivan. They weren't far apart (same year?). Chrysler followed soon.
Of course, there have been earlier cars that could be called minivans. The Fiat Multipla, for one. IIRC Tatra also built something that coul be called a minivan.

Let me get this straight. by FreeLinux · 2003-01-13 08:53 · Score: 4, Funny

You are advocating cars with the brakes and the accelerator on the steering wheel and a tank full of hydrogen underneath? Looks like it's time to move to one of those islands where they don't have cars.

People still have trouble with the accelerator and brake pedals in their traditional spot. Now you want to put them on the steering wheel? I'd really rather not have one of these coming toward me.

Re:Let me get this straight. by thelexx · 2003-01-13 09:18 · Score: 2

"We are finally at the point where most people buying cars grew up playing video games... Why not use the same interface for driving around in real life?"

Because it sucks and is the number one reason why people who want total control when playing racing or flight sims get hooked up with pedals/sticks/etc. Also, there are no G's pulling on you when you're playing a video game. Doesn't matter if it's 'by wire' or physical connect, wheels can change directions very quickly and with great force, and the steering wheel must remain in sync with them at _some_ ratio, or the steering mechanism would be unreliable at best and useless at worst. Imagine trying to make an emergency maneuver at speed with steering and throttle/brakes, all on the same controller. It wouldn't be pretty. While I won't argue that the current standard control layout in cars is somehow ideal or perfect, it definitely seems to fall in the 'aint broke dont fix' group.

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Re:Let me get this straight. by skeedlelee · 2003-01-13 09:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I'm pretty sure you're kidding there are a few reasons to do this onthe HyWire car specifically.

First, the controls are really different, twist = acceleration, squeeze = brake. Not terribly different from motorcycle controls when you think about it.

Second, this is probably not going ot turn into a production vehicle. It is sort of a meta-concept car. The fuel cell stuff is all squished into an eleven inch slab centered roughly at the wheel axes. Basically, less the controls, the everything useful but the passengers fits into this tiny space. Next they bolt a bunch of random stuff onto the top. It allows them to design a bunch of body plans without having to remake or remount the engine every time they come up with a new body concept.

The weird controls probably evolved out of this in a way, they wanted a interface module that could be removed easily. Pedals, because of their location relative to the slab thingy would require a commitment on their part as to where a lot of stuff would go. This way they can play around with configuration to their hearts content.

Not entirely unlike a 'skinnable' car when you think about it. I think it would be kinda neat to see in a production car, modular form like this. You go in, choose a chasis power rating or something, then choose a bunch of options (two, three, four, or six seats, truck bed, trunk, seats that recline all the way back, sporty aerodynamics, maximum cargo space, driver seat with a high field of view etc). Then you leave for a few hours while they bolt the thing together. Okay, maybe not, but, it's an interesting concept. Imagine, instead of renting a truck for the weekend to move, you go down to the dealership and rent a truck bed, they hold onto your rear seats until you come back.

As far as the completely transparent front design, I imagine that takes some getting used to, what with the road being that much more obvious as it streams past you.
Re:Let me get this straight. by afidel · 2003-01-13 09:57 · Score: 2

Acceleration on the steering wheel is fine, braking is not. In fact I already do probably 80% of my acceleration via the accelerate and coast buttons for my cruise controll, but it still isn't as usefull as the continuous transition of the potentiometer in the gas pedal for heavy traffic driving.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Let me get this straight. by Bishop · 2003-01-13 10:53 · Score: 2

Acceleration on the steering wheel is fine, braking is not.

Many a motorcyclist will disagree. The breaking control possible with a hand far exceeds the control possible with ones foot.
Re:Let me get this straight. by Bishop · 2003-01-13 17:33 · Score: 2

While it is true that the hand lever controls the front break, the control comes from the agility of the hand compared to the foot and leg.

There are a number of motorcycles (Honda and BMW in particular) now with linked breaking. Typically one or two calipers of 4 or 6 in the front will be activated by the "rear" break pedal. Similarly 1 of 3 or 4 calipers on the rear will be activated by the front break lever.

In a motorcycle 70% to 100% of the breaking force will come from the front wheel (70% and the start of breaking to 90% or more when the bike is almost stopped). Despite this fact many riders still believe that it is dangerous to use the front break at any time. To debunk this myth my rideing instructor had to show what happens when you try to stop with only the rear wheel. It takes must longer to stop and it is very easy to lock up the rear wheel.
Re:Let me get this straight. by afidel · 2003-01-13 19:14 · Score: 2

Ummm, what in my post suggested I drive below the speed limit? In fact my normal mode of operation is to stay in the fast lane at 5 over the posted limit and to stay there unless some person really feels the need to go some insane speed. I perform a minimum of lane changes and stay out of the merging lane to minimize the chances of others running into me and maintain a constant speed as that makes me easy to predict for other drivers. If I need to accelerate I will, situations such as passing another driver, entering the freeway or accelerating into a faster lane are all completed with the manual gas pedal, other operations such as changing speed when entering a new speed zone or minor corrections for the person in front of me's inability to maintain a constant speed are performed with the cruise controlls as they were intended. I drive a car that has a porshe designed engine and enjoy spirited driving at times, but for the most part my commute is just that a commute and letting the fuel injection computer and the automatic transmission compute the most fuel effecient way to drive is not a problem for me. And in drive by wire cars the throttle is a potentiometer that reads the stress on the pedal and computes the amount of fuel for the fuel injection computer to dump into the cylinders, throttle bodies are so 20 years ago =)

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Gas and breaks on the wheel? by Trollificus · 2003-01-13 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Part of the reason these hybrid cars aren't taking off in some circles is because, quite frankly, they look retarded.
People don't want a car that looks like a bubble with three wheels or controls in places they're not accustomed to.
People just want a car! Plain and simple. Most people don't care what is under the hood as long as the car is familiar(controls where they should be, etc..) and they can fuel up anywhere. Cars are meant for convenience as far as most people are concerned. Despite what really bad Sci-fi movies would have you believe, the 21st century just isn't ready for some of these new radical concept designs.

--

"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura

Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by parc · 2003-01-13 09:21 · Score: 4, Informative

A: The HyWire isn't a hybrid.
B: Today's hybrid gas/electrics AREN'T bubble cars.

OK, I'll give you the Insight is a bubble car. But it's also a two-seater semi-concept car. The Prius is closer to a real car, but I swear to god it looks like an Echo. The Civic, on the other hand, is just a Civie EX with a fancy transmission and electric moter. Obviously, it's got some other differences, but the only noticible one on mine is the the back seats don't fold down (that's where the batteries are).
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by budgenator · 2003-01-13 10:18 · Score: 2

It seemed to me that cars going to the auto show are purposefully made outragious when they are impractical for some reason or another. Since there isn't a lot of hydrogen refueling stations around, and the thing would cost $250K, they make it a little outragious so people demand they make it in model year 2005.

If it's something more practical like the Prowler or PT Cruiser there not much outragious. If people start picketing the dealership's demanding that cool car they saw at the show, they can actualy start making them.

Oh about your sig, "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets.", I had a co-worker who was a Dwarf, she could not reach the pedals on any car. Her car had hand-controls installed for the throtle and brakes.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by ces · 2003-01-13 14:34 · Score: 2

I will agree with you that the General's styling and design has improved by leaps and bounds recently. I will also agree that nobody builds better full-size SUVs, trucks, and vans than the big three. Personally I would not buy a big-three passenger or sports car with the possible exception of some Dodge and Chrysler models. Note I'm refering to the "traditional" big-three brands, not the overseas makers they have bought or merged with.

While the image of Cadillac has improved much recently I don't think it or Lincon are in the same class as Saab, Jaguar, BMW, or Mercedes.

While the C-5 is a fine car it also not really in the same class as a 911, Viper, NSX, or Ferrari.

--
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by hcdejong · 2003-01-14 01:26 · Score: 2

Cadillac is a premier name in the same class as Jaguar, BWM, Mercedes-Benz** and Lincoln.
Only if you like tacky interiors and don't care about roadholding.
And outside the US, there still is a big difference in perception (and with these prestige brands, that is important) between Cadillac/Lincoln on one hand, and the European marques on the other.
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by benzapp · 2003-01-14 02:27 · Score: 2

Ahh yes, the company that brought us power windows, power seats, transaxal automatic transmission, compact automotive air conditioning, modern suspension, antilock breaks...

GM is not perfect, but they have an amazingly inventive staff and their build quality is still among the best. Not only that, their vehicles are intelligently designed so you can fix them yourself.

And as far as style, maybe if you are a yuppie fuck who can't fathom driving anything other than a BMW you will think GM has no style. GM practically INVENTED style as a mass market commodity. Back when Ford had their Model T which looked like crap, GM was offering cars which didn't look like a power man's shit box. In 1970 when BMW produced nothing more than glorified compact cars, Cadillac had the El Dorado convertible.

Today, when every European car company tries to be BMW, Cadillac comes out with the CTS, the first remarkably original design since Ford began producing the Taurus in 1986.

Today, Cadillac is back to being the innovator it once was... I applaud them for it.

--
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by benzapp · 2003-01-14 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Only if you like tacky interiors and don't care about roadholding.

You obviously haven't driven many cars. This is a myth yuppies perpetuate to justify purchasing an expensive Eurotrash car because there really isn't anything else about them worth praising. Since GM practically invented everything about the modern car, its ridiculous to claim their cars do not handle well.

Most BMW's are crap. A stiff suspension is not the only definition of a car, and doesn't affect its handling. This is why Cadillac invented active suspension, to variably control the handling of the vehicle depending on driving conditions.

Personally, variable suspension is preferable in the Americas. We have larger countries, and road quality is not as consistant as in Germany or England. We have more highway in the US than all of Europe. There are many instances where a stiff suspension will not provide optimum road handling, almost to a dangerous degree. Hit a pot whole with a stiff suspension and your car may bounce out of control.

Seriously, we having been designing cars for 100 years. All cars are produced with exceptional quality today. BMW produces a car which never changes, never improves. It caters to people who prefer a static reality. This is why a BMW today looks essentially like a BMW of 30 years ago.

And outside the US, there still is a big difference in perception (and with these prestige brands, that is important) between Cadillac/Lincoln on one hand, and the European marques on the other.

Oh yes, and what part of the world have you been to? Its funny because Mercedes-Benz produces the most taxi cabs in Europe. They practically hold the same place as the Ford Crown Victoria or the Chevrolet Caprice. "Luxury" is a very different thing in Europe, where society is not as stratified. There, the sheer size of some American cars would be decadent enough. I guarantee you a Lincoln Navigator would hold far greater sway in the luxury department than a BMW 740, if you were France.

--
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by hcdejong · 2003-01-14 03:16 · Score: 2

GM practically invented everything about the modern car
Excuse me while I fall about laughing. You credit Cadillac with inventing active suspension. In fact, Lotus invented it, around 1980. Citroën offered cars with active suspension since 1989, Cadillac introduced it in 1996.
Personally, variable suspension is preferable in the Americas.
And not only there, which is why more and more manufacturers are offering it. European manufacturers, mostly.
There are many instances where a stiff suspension will not provide optimum road handling, almost to a dangerous degree.
There are quite a few European manufacturers which have shown that it's possible to build a car that rides comfortably and still handles well (Peugeot, Jaguar), and they didn't need active suspension to achieve that.
Seriously, we having been designing cars for 100 years. All cars are produced with exceptional quality today. BMW produces a car which never changes, never improves.
Bull. BMW generations may look very similar (that ended with the new 7-series), but they constantly innovate. iDrive may not be the best possible solution to clutter, but at least they made an attempt to deal with it. Valvetronic is a huge step forward. The US car makers, on the other hand, change the exterior of the cars every year, but forget to innovate the underlying technology. They still mainly churn out square boxes with 2-valve V8 gas guzzling engines.
There, the sheer size of some American cars would be decadent enough.
Decadent, yes. Desirable, no. The design sucks, and they are completely unsuitable for our European roads (especially for travelling at high speed).
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by benzapp · 2003-01-14 05:05 · Score: 2

Excuse me while I fall about laughing. You credit Cadillac with inventing active suspension. In fact, Lotus invented it, around 1980. Citroën offered cars with active suspension since 1989, Cadillac introduced it in 1996.

Cadillac had active suspension systems in 1972. Not as technically advanced as today (or even "active" but the definition of some), but since they invented hydraulic suspension varying the pressure was an easy feat. At this same time, Cadillac became the first company to offer traction control and air bags. 5 years earlier, they were the first company to have front wheel drive.

In the 1980's Cadillac pioneered computer control of fuel injection systems as well as 4 wheel antilock disk breaks.

The greatest achievement that took the Europeans YEARS to reverse engineer however was the transaxal automatic transmission, which even today was an incredibly brilliant innovation.

There are quite a few European manufacturers which have shown that it's possible to build a car that rides comfortably and still handles well (Peugeot, Jaguar), and they didn't need active suspension to achieve that.

There are many European automotive companies that are obviously good cars, but the examples you have cited are just bad. Ten years ago, Peugeot and Jaguar were crap. Peugeot is STILL crap. My family used to own a Peugeot, they stopped selling the damn things in the US because they sucked so bad. Jaguar was crap until they were purchased by Ford. Do you realize Jaguar was once the most unreliable brand on the road?

Bull. BMW generations may look very similar (that ended with the new 7-series), but they constantly innovate. iDrive may not be the best possible solution to clutter, but at least they made an attempt to deal with it. Valvetronic is a huge step forward. The US car makers, on the other hand, change the exterior of the cars every year, but forget to innovate the underlying technology. They still mainly churn out square boxes with 2-valve V8 gas guzzling engines.

BMW has minor innovations, but not much beyond what Cadillac pioneered over 20 years ago. Valvetronic is a step, but not as important of a step as Northstar. I am amazed you are unfamiliar with the technical superiority of the Northstar V-8 over anything else on the market. It is far more efficient than anything offered in Europe, and is a model of how to vary engine output depending on load. In case you are unaware of how it works, Cylinders are shut off depending on load. So, when cruising the highway the unit becomes a four cylinder cutting highway fuel usage tremendously. In harsh climate or in response to engine difficulties, the unit switches to using only two cylinders at a time, alternating with every stroke to prevent the engine from overheating.

BMW has nothing even close to that. Valvetronic is a great invention, but it provides nothing more than 5-10% increase in fuel efficiency and better starting in cold temperatures.

Anyone who knows cars right now knows the Northstar V-8 is the most technically advanced engine ever made. Get over it.

Decadent, yes. Desirable, no. The design sucks, and they are completely unsuitable for our European roads (especially for travelling at high speed).

This is somewhat true, but only for SUV's. A Cadillac CTS is the same size as a BMW 5.

--
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Re:Gas and breaks on the wheel? by hcdejong · 2003-01-14 09:15 · Score: 2

since they invented hydraulic suspension
Usually it's Citroën that gets credited with that. The DS, you know.
In the 1980's Cadillac pioneered computer control of fuel injection systems as well as 4 wheel antilock disk breaks.
Again, they weren't there first. Jensen did ABS in 1970, EFI was common by 1980, Saab got there in 1976 IIRC (the EMS).
The greatest achievement that took the Europeans YEARS to reverse engineer however was the transaxal automatic transmission, which even today was an incredibly brilliant innovation.
While US car makers were playing with transaxles, European car makers switched to front wheel drive for most cars, making real inroads into freeing up cabin space.
The examples you have cited are just bad
Quite the contrary. We were talking about roadholding, not reliability.
I am amazed you are unfamiliar with the technical superiority of the Northstar V-8 over anything else on the market.
Oh, the Northstar is a good engine. But technically superior over anything on the market? No. And it is an exception. It's just about the only advanced engine available in US cars. All others use mediocre to medieval power plants.
Cadillac has woken up. Northstar is good, and the new models they recently showed look like Europeans might accept them. But apart from those two, there are only two US cars that have taken off in Europe: the Voyager and the PT Cruiser. And even those aren't being bought because they offer brilliant engineering.

So much easier by IPFreely · 2003-01-13 08:54 · Score: 3, Funny

I've already got an alternative driving method.

Push the joy stick forward to accelerate, pull it back to brake, lean it left and right to steer. The trigger is the emergency brake, and the thumb button turns your car back upright when you roll it.

What else do you need?

--
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.

no gas pedal? by alanshot · 2003-01-13 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

what ever happened to "if it aint broke, dont fix it?" I dont see why we were having such a problem using our feet so as to need us to use our hands for brakes/gas.

Re:no gas pedal? by nihaoyao · 2003-01-13 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

well, if it aint broke, why do we have cruise control? or adjustable pedals?

the pedal concept can be improved upon.

take a course on human factors.
Re:no gas pedal? by YrWrstNtmr · 2003-01-13 09:35 · Score: 2

The first rule of all user interfaces is to put things where people expect them.

CLI or GUI
one button or 2. or 3. or 5.
keyboard or touchscreen
Ergo or regular keyboard
QWERTY or Dvorak
drive on the right or the left
tiller or steering wheel
steering wheel or joystick (Saab prototype)
touchtype or thumbing

People CAN get used to new ways of doing the same task. Sometimes they are better. Sometimes not. We shall just have to wait and see.
Re:no gas pedal? by jez9999 · 2003-01-13 10:21 · Score: 2

What about the people who have no use of their arms/hands? They're completely screwed, aren't they? I really don't think a tiny minority of disabled people justifies changing the design of every consumer car. It's like mandating that EVERY flight of stairs be replaced with a ramp.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:no gas pedal? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-01-13 10:36 · Score: 2

what ever happened to "if it aint broke, dont fix it?" I dont see why we were having such a problem using our feet so as to need us to use our hands for brakes/gas.
From the artical:
SKF engineers confess that the all-in-one control is meant to emphasize the advantages possible with by-wire technology?it would work just as well with pedals to send the go/stop signals, freeing the steering wheel from its range limitation.
No one's going to be doing any major re-arranging of the controls of the car. This is a concept car. Please keep that in mind at all times.
Re:no gas pedal? by limekiller4 · 2003-01-13 10:42 · Score: 2

alanshot writes:
"what ever happened to "if it aint broke, dont fix it?" I dont see why we were having such a problem using our feet so as to need us to use our hands for brakes/gas.
I think the general idea here, much like the argument for alternate keyboard layouts, is that the original configuration for a car's controls is not the most efficient, ergonomic or intuitive.
Whether you agree with this notion or not is another matter.

--
My .02,
Limekiller
Re:no gas pedal? by Jeremi · 2003-01-13 14:37 · Score: 2

You guys are missing the fact that this is a DEMO, not a production vehicle. It's meant to show what is possible, not to be driven by actual human beings. Rest assured that the production models will be a bit more traditional, at least for a few years...

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:no gas pedal? by ces · 2003-01-13 14:40 · Score: 2

I would like to see some real human factors research go into the driving interface.

It would be interesting to see what is optimal if you remove the familiarity requirement.

Personaly I think a cycle like interface would be cool.

--
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.

This IS great news, but... by multiOSfreak · 2003-01-13 08:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

How long will take to implement these types of vehicles in America? I'm betting it will be difficult to break the special-interest deathgrip that Big Oil has on America. These new vehicles, while fantastic for the environment (and for many other things), will no doubt eat into the profit of major corporations that depend on America's crippling reliance on petroleum products.

I hope for a speedy incorporation of this wonderful technology, but I prepare for the typical halts to progress that corporations often impose.

--
Transistors and Beer!!

Re:This IS great news, but... by bwalling · 2003-01-13 09:18 · Score: 2

These new vehicles, while fantastic for the environment (and for many other things), will no doubt eat into the profit of major corporations that depend on America's crippling reliance on petroleum products.

Unfortunately, they will eat into the pockets of anyone that dares to buy one. The article mentioned that the engine alone is $40,000. That's part of the problem that the existing hybrids have. They are low production, high R&D. You have to pay a lot to get these first generation models.
Re:This IS great news, but... by Russ+Steffen · 2003-01-13 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nah. Since there are no hydrogen wells, or really any natural source of hydrogen in quantity, it's going to have to be artificially produced. Which requires power. Lots of it, in fact. Which will likely come mostly from the usual suspects: oil, NG, coal, etc.

The conversions from fuel -> power -> hydrogen and hydrogen -> power are hideously inefficient, I'd say the oil companies are going to love this.
Re:This IS great news, but... by sql*kitten · 2003-01-13 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

How long will take to implement these types of vehicles in America? I'm betting it will be difficult to break the special-interest deathgrip that Big Oil has on America.

Why do you say that? Who do you suppose will be "Big Hydrogen" if these sorts of vehicles become popular? Exactly the same people who are Big Oil now, after all, they already have the refineries, the distribution network, and the retail outlets.

The real threat to Big Oil comes from pure electric vehicles - and even then, Big Oil can still sell to power generators. Infact, it might even be better for them, as they won't have to carry their retail operations.

but I prepare for the typical halts to progress that corporations often impose.

Pretty much every useful piece of technology was developed by a private corporation. Don't try to tell me about NASA - velcro could have been developed a hell of a lot more cheaply if they hadn't had to fund orbital missions to do it! If anything holds progress back, it's governments, who make entire industries wait while they dither. The next tech revolution will be biotech, and the Western governments are doing their level best to drive it offshore with their heavy-handed regulations!
Re:This IS great news, but... by PCM2 · 2003-01-13 10:24 · Score: 2

How long will take to implement these types of vehicles in America? I'm betting it will be difficult to break the special-interest deathgrip that Big Oil has on America.
Not only that, but I believe that current U.S. safety laws require some kind of mechanical mechanism to control your car. In other words, the steering wheel must, at least to some degree, turn the wheels; and the brake pedal must engage the brakes. They can't just be buttons that do the same thing -- they have to be actually doing it, at least partially. But I'm not an engineer, so maybe I'm FoS. I just recall hearing this somewhere.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:This IS great news, but... by CommieLib · 2003-01-13 10:54 · Score: 2

Take off the tinfoil hat. Where do you think hydrogen will come from?

It will be refined from petrochemical products.

--
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Re:This IS great news, but... by smallpaul · 2003-01-13 11:37 · Score: 2

I hope for a speedy incorporation of this wonderful technology, but I prepare for the typical halts to progress that corporations often impose.

Don't let the facts intrude on your paranoia. Corporations don't "halt progress." They can't. IBM could not stop the PC (but they could and did join in). Microsoft could not stop the Internet (but they could and did join in). The horse-carriage people couldn't stop the trains, the train-people couldn't stop the cars, the car-people couldn't prevent the invention of planes, etc.
Re:This IS great news, but... by ces · 2003-01-13 14:46 · Score: 2

I doubt if any of the Hy-wire technology makes it into production vehicles it will cost anywhere near what the components on this car cost.

Remember this is custom prototype vehicle with a lot of new stuff on it. Much of it was probably built by hand. If you were going to make 100,000 of them the costs would come WAY down.

--
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.

Re:But? by stinky+wizzleteats · 2003-01-13 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

ntill the goverment MAKES people do something about their waste - People will do nothing

And I suppose the fortunate transition from coal gas was the result of such governmental control, or because it was expensive, dirty, and dangerous?

A Very cool mix. Diesel and Hydrogen. by _Sambo · 2003-01-13 08:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

As hybrid vehicles go, the Gas/Electric hybrids like Toyota's Prius are cool. They also feel like you're driving a cardboard box.

Diesel has made much more progress in the past few years as far as an efficient fuel than gas. Try on the Turbo-charged VW Diesel Jetta for a great drive w/ superb miles to the gallon.

A marriage between these technologies is a great deal for the auto industry, the environment and everything else. The one question is $.

Will the manufacturers be able to bring the price down far enough to entice Soccer Moms everywhere that their SUV can be environmentally friendly and fuel efficient?

Governments could offer serious incentives to consumers in the area of tax credits for purchasing such vehicles. Hell, I'd buy one if the deal was sweet enough.

Re:A Very cool mix. Diesel and Hydrogen. by ShavenYak · 2003-01-13 10:51 · Score: 4, Funny

As hybrid vehicles go, the Gas/Electric hybrids like Toyota's Prius are cool. They also feel like you're driving a cardboard box.

I've driven a Prius, and I've driven a cardboard box. I might have only been 8 when I drove a cardboard box, but I still think I'd remember it enough to have noticed if the Prius was in any way similar.

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Re:A Very cool mix. Diesel and Hydrogen. by NaturePhotog · 2003-01-13 14:45 · Score: 2

As hybrid vehicles go, the Gas/Electric hybrids like Toyota's Prius are cool. They also feel like you're driving a cardboard box.
Our Prius is the most comfortable car we've ever owned. Yes, my old VW Golf can out accelerate it. Yes my old, long-gone VW Rabbit Diesel got almost as good of mileage (though not nearly as low of emissions). You must have driven some pretty nice cardboard boxes :-)
Diesel has made much more progress in the past few years as far as an efficient fuel than gas. Try on the Turbo-charged VW Diesel Jetta for a great drive w/ superb miles to the gallon.
One thing I've wondered about with diesels. I'm not adverse to them, having owned and driven one 10 years, but I was comparing fuel economy and emissions for various cars at the DOE's website, and while diesels do much better in mileage than traditional gas engines, they're about the same as hybrids, and aren't quite as good in greenhouse gas emissions, and are frankly pretty bad in the Pounds of Smog-Forming Pollution category.
Jetta Prius MPG 42/49 52/45 city/highway SFP 43.7-58.8 0-1.0 smog-forming pollution (lbs./15K miles) GHG 4.7 4.0 greenhouse gases (tons/year)
values are for 2003 Jetta and CA Prius (since that's where I live)
Is the smog-forming pollution something inherent in diesel? Or is it better with biodiesel? Or something that can be fixed with better engineering?

When can I get one? by dfn5 · 2003-01-13 08:57 · Score: 2

So the Army can buy 30,000 of these and I can't even get one? Great.

--
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.

Infrastructure by Jason1729 · 2003-01-13 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

It sounds like the car is fueled by hydrogen. People won't buy the cars until they can get hydrogen fuel at nearly every corner gas station. Nobody want's to travel a long way to buy gas, or worse, find themselves low on gas 100 miles from the nearest hydrogen station.

The gas stations will not invest in the eqipment to dispense hydrogen until there's a large number of the cars on the road that can use it.

Jason ProfQuotes

Re:Infrastructure by Daetrin · 2003-01-13 09:07 · Score: 2

Last i heard the Hy-wire was going to have the ability to split normal gassoline to make it's own hydrogen.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Where's the all-hydrogen car? by KDan · 2003-01-13 09:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

And more importantly, where's the hydrogen-distributing power stations? And even more importantly, where's the cheap and plentiful hydrogen production mechanism?

Hydrogen hybrid cars are all well and nice, but they don't get us anywhere. At the moment the only ways to produce hydrogen are expensive and inefficient, and end up costing more "regular" energy (usually provided by fossil fuels or nuclear power) to produce. Electrolysis is good to play with in the physics labs at school, but when it comes to produce very large quantities of Hydrogen for mass consumption it's worth practically zero.

I read a while ago in New Scientist that some group in Japan was trying to use a solar-pumped laser in a satellite to convert large quantities of salt water (in a big tank on an island) with an added catalyst, into hydrogen. That's the sort of news which are worth noting when it comes to cleaner fuels. Once hydrogen is available in every gas station, oil will die off naturally. Until hydrogen can be produced cheaply and in very large quantities, there's not going to be hydrogen in gas stations, and all these hybrid efforts are just lip service to make Sunday Ecologists feel better about themselves, so presenting this sort of news as a notable even in the move towards cleaner fuels is like saying "Microsoft issues a new patch for IIS, saves the internet from script kiddies".

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem

Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by stratjakt · 2003-01-13 09:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's like electric heating/stoves/etc in homes.

I got into the most ridiculous argument over the weekend with a flaky chick who fancies herself a savior of the earth. She got into a rant about how I should feel ashamed that I use oil to heat my house, burning it and creating pollution, while she has an electric furnace.

Eventually I gave up trying to explain how all her electric system does is centralize the source of pollution to the power plant. She seemed oblivious to the fact that millions of tons of coal go up in smoke to make that electricity.

I didn't even bother to bring up the fact that my furnace is much more efficient, and that all the work and money I put into upgrading my homes insulation over the last year means that the furnace fires up for at most an hour or two a day.

She probably would have gone through the roof if I told her I planned on removing the 2 electric water heaters in place now, replacing with one larger oil-fired heater.

Sure, she's a flake. But there are plenty of flakes out there, ready to hop behind the wheel of a brand new hydrogen car, completely oblivious to how much energy it actually takes to drive. All they understand is 'steam comes out instead of smoke so it's saving the planet!'.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by Darnit · 2003-01-13 09:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

If she has a ground source (geothermal) heat pump then she is polluting much less than you and more efficient. Your oil fired heater puts up more particulates than an old diesel engine for output. The differences in the temperature between the fire and the surrounding air are a major factor in efficiency. The larger the difference the worse the efficiency. Geothermal heat pumps raise the plenum to about 120F (i think) and heat the air to the house to just a few degrees warmer than what is needed. What temp does oil burn at? I'm assuming it iwll burn paper so therefore it is at least 400F. I would imagine that at least 1/2 of your available energy is going out through your chimney.

Electric water heaters kind of annoy me since they take so long to produce hot water.

Hydrogen sucks as a fuel source because the cost of production, transportation, and storage is so energy intensive. Hydrogen is almost as bad as gasoline in the end because so much energy is wasted just moving and compressing it.

The facts remain though. From coal mine to usable energy in the wheels of your car, battery electric vehicles are the most efficient. The geothermal heat pump will blow the doors off your oil fired heater for efficiency and pollute less.

#1 coal mine to geothermal heat pump energy

#2 natural gas well to natural gas furnace energy

#1 and #2 I think are very close in efficiency and pollution with the new equipment available today. High efficiency gas furnaces still cost more per year to run in Nebraska (not all places) than a geothermal heat pump. The heat pump costs more initially though (about a 15 year payback w/interest).
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by mnmoore · 2003-01-13 10:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think everybody understands that we're a long way from realizing a non-polluting transportation infrastructure with any technology.

In the shorter term, yes, generating electricity produces pollution, but electricity still wins if generating it creates less pollution than what it replaces. Centralizing generation makes it economically feasible to spend the big bucks on super-efficient gas-turbine generation, stack scrubbers, etc., which you can't do in a distributed system (i.e., everyone burning their own fossil fuels).

My personal vision of eco-nirvana is super-efficient, cheap solar cells coupled with small, efficient hydrogen production (from water) technology. Every household has one, generates during the day, converts hydrogen to electricity at night, can sell/buy from the grid as necessary, and as a bonus can fuel their hydrogen car before heading out... A guy can dream, right?
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by Michael+Woodhams · 2003-01-13 11:32 · Score: 2

Many fuel cell products/prototypes use a hydrocarbon fuel (I think typically methane or methanol.) They use a 'reformer' to extract the hydrogen from the hydrocarbon, to pass it to the fuel cells.

This gives a number of options to reduce the problem of setting up the hydrogen distribution network:
* Reformer in vehicle. Fuel it with methane (i.e. natural gas - already available on tap in many cities) or methanol (liquid, can use existing petrol/gas station network) or perhaps even ordinary petrol/gas or diesel. (I'm not sure how flexible the reformers are.)
* Reformer at petrol/gas station. It gets the feedstock as above, and provides hydrogen to your car.
* Piped hydrogen (the network you worry about needing to set up.) This can be set up in stages, due to the above options.

Disclaimer: All this is from memory from popular science/technology articles. I don't know how efficient these things are. I do remember that they need to run hot (about 300C I think.)

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by sean23007 · 2003-01-13 11:45 · Score: 2

No, it's more like saying "Microsoft issues a new patch for IIS, damage done by script kiddies expected to slow down." It's still better than not doing it.

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by js7a · 2003-01-13 20:41 · Score: 2

Electrolysis is good to play with in the physics labs at school, but when it comes to produce very large quantities of Hydrogen for mass consumption it's worth practically zero.

Nonsense. Electrolysis is already in commercial use. As catylitic electrolysis (fuel-cell-in-reverse) methods are discovered, the process will become even less expensive. At least, we won't know until we try, and electrochemistry is a vastly under-explored field. Fluidized bed electrodes of various organic catylists are numerous, but only a fraction have yet been tried. I need to check the patent literature on the latest electrolysis efficiencies. They have gotten much better than "physics labs at school."
Plus, H-gen equipment can be used to store energy in case of power outage, as many hospitals and some cities do. This means that wind power will quickly become dominant, one way or another.
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by horza · 2003-01-13 20:48 · Score: 2

Eventually I gave up trying to explain how all her electric system does is centralize the source of pollution to the power plant. She seemed oblivious to the fact that millions of tons of coal go up in smoke to make that electricity.

Wrong. A growing percentage of that energy is produced from renewable sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc).

I didn't even bother to bring up the fact that my furnace is much more efficient, and that all the work and money I put into upgrading my homes insulation over the last year means that the furnace fires up for at most an hour or two a day.

Your furnace is not particularly efficient. Do a Google on micro-CHP (Combined Heat and Power) to see how you can more than double your efficiency.

But there are plenty of flakes out there, ready to hop behind the wheel of a brand new hydrogen car, completely oblivious to how much energy it actually takes to drive.

Because it will reduce pollution and improve the quality of life for all of us? Not sure what a flake is (yank term?) but it sounds pretty good to me.

Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by horza · 2003-01-13 21:03 · Score: 2

And more importantly, where's the hydrogen-distributing power stations? And even more importantly, where's the cheap and plentiful hydrogen production mechanism?

It's this kind of apathetic crap that is the disease of todays society. Once people vote with their feet and start buying hydrogen cars then the capitalist market will ensure that there will be plenty of companies will step up to the plate and offer cheap hydrogen locally. With hydrogen being the most abundant substance in the universe, I'm sure it won't be long (and a few years isn't long when you talk about the future of our society) before hydrogen is a fraction of the price of gas.

Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Where's the all-hydrogen car? by sql*kitten · 2003-01-13 22:39 · Score: 2

A growing percentage of that energy is produced from renewable sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc).

You can double $VERY_SMALL_NUMBER, and it's only $SLIGHTLY_LARGER_NUMBER.

Interestingly, a coal fired power station releases way more radiation into the air than a nuclear station, in addition to the pollution that everyone worries about, from isotopes within the coal itself. If a nuclear station released that much radiation it would be closed down!

Solar, wind and tidal will never be enough - the energy density is simply too low. You would have to ring the UK with tidal generators, and cover every square mile of farmland with wind farms and solar panels before you could even come close to supporting the UK's energy needs. The money invested in these schemes is wasted, and should be diverted to fusion research. And so should a chunk of the military budget - no need to fight wars in the Middle East if you can get your power from a substance found in seawater.

Because it will reduce pollution and improve the quality of life for all of us? Not sure what a flake is (yank term?) but it sounds pretty good to me.

Dharma from Dharma & Greg and Phoebe from Friends are examples of flakes. Generally well meaning, but clueless.

Re:But? by shimmin · 2003-01-13 09:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Alchol taxes? In the US, the alchol excise tax only applies to alcohol that is produced for beverage purposes. Alcohol produced for fuel purposes is not only exempt from the excise tax, but is actually subsidized.

They redisigned it from the ground up by geekoid · 2003-01-13 09:02 · Score: 2, Funny

and it STILL doesn't fly. Losers.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:what? by brsmith4 · 2003-01-13 09:02 · Score: 2

Wow, yer dumb. Did you bother to scroll down? Its one of the many stories on that page.

Tip: Read article then talk.

Interior photos by boinger · 2003-01-13 09:04 · Score: 2

Article with a picture from the driver's side (In America's opinion).

I must say, this looks pretty snazzy. Assuming it would hold up in a crash (which, I'm sure, will be addressed). With the suicide-hinge rear doors, some impressive engineering will have to go into making this crash-worthy. (Why do you think they call them "suicide doors"?)

--
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org

Re:Interior photos by RollingThunder · 2003-01-13 09:21 · Score: 2

If you look closely at the rear doors, though, they appear to have an inside tab that sticks forward to the front door - you can't open the rear doors without opening the front first.

That doesn't completely remove the problems with that design, but it does make some inroads.
Re:Interior photos by mohaine · 2003-01-13 09:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why do you think they call them "suicide doors"?

Not because of crash safety.

They got the name because if you open then while in motion, the wind will rip the door off, taking you with it. Modern suicide doors are made so that they can only open when the front door is open, making them impossible to open while in motion.

--
(appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Re:Interior photos by boinger · 2003-01-13 10:40 · Score: 2
Link me (or show me) proof of this.
So far as *I* can find, people say one of three things:
1. They pull you out of the car if opened at speed
2. They pop open on their own and since there were no seatbelts (back then) you fall out
3. They pop open in a crash, thus making you fall out (again, no seatbelts)
I actually find most evidence of the latter. So, unless you can show me the background of that phrase definitively, I'm going to stick with the "you die more in crashes" theory. Notably, the Car Talk guys agree with me (if that's any authority). And, yes, I know that modern suicide doors have a catch to prevent them opening alone, however, in most modern instances, they're also 'shorty' doors (Saturn's being the most prevalent). Another issue in the case of this car is that they're full-size and eliminate the traditional B-pillar. A central B-Pillar makes for a much sturdier car. Sturdiness tends to be good when it comes to the passenger cabin.
--
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Re:Interior photos by boinger · 2003-01-14 06:43 · Score: 2

I always thought of the 'suicide' in 'suicide doors' being like "it's suicide to own a car with those". Not like "ooh, I could use this mechanism to off myself". I guess that interpretation is what leans me one way and you the other, yah?

--
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org

Hydrogen economies / environmental effect by CommieLib · 2003-01-13 09:04 · Score: 2

Assuming that energy has to be expended to produce hydrogen in the first place, does anyone have any idea on what the net environmental effect of a fuel cell car is versus a traditional ICE one?

Obviously, there are economies of scale in producing hydrogen in mass quantities, but it seems to me the claims that GM has made to the effect of removing the car as a significant factor in the environment are utter horsehockey.

--
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.

Re:Hydrogen economies / environmental effect by flahiker · 2003-01-13 09:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am not an expert on fuel cells or hydrogen, but it is a viable alternative. Fuel cells are steadily increasing in wattage and will soon reach the 200Kw range. Now all fuel cells use hydrogen. The question is where does it come from. The 3 most common ways are compressed gas as was used in the article, gasoline, and methanol. Methanol and Gasoline both require a reformer to break the hydrocarbon chain an mahe H. Gasoline is a complex hydrocarbon, has an excelent energy density, but is complicated to reform than methanol. It is also supported by a large infrastructure. Methanol is a simple hydrocarbon that is easily reformed into H. It has approximately .5x the energy density of gasoline. One very large benefit is that it can be generated from local renewable resources. Anyway the H is made, there will be side efects. Reforming does produce carbon as waste. It can be captured as a liquid or solid rather than a greenhouse emission. Methanol from plant byproducts has all of the nasty issues of industrial farming. As a side note: Why is that vehiclo so damn ugly. There are some very exciting EV prototypes out there. At least one does 0 to 60 in 3 seconds.
Re:Hydrogen economies / environmental effect by banzai51 · 2003-01-13 09:36 · Score: 2

Don't forget to lump Ford, DC, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan in there with your horsepucky. All are testing and pushing Hydrogen Fuel Cells as an answer to the problems of the internal combustion engine.
Re:Hydrogen economies / environmental effect by Darnit · 2003-01-13 09:57 · Score: 2, Informative

There is a paper describing the cost of distribution in a 3 part series at evworld.com that concluded this week.

http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm? storyid=471

Yes the claims are crap about hydrogen being the savior of the environment.
Re:Hydrogen economies / environmental effect by angel'o'sphere · 2003-01-13 12:33 · Score: 2

The difference between gasolin, methanol and hydrogen is:

o gasoline is burned in a combustion engine
o methanol has only 0.5 the energy gasoline has
o hydrogen is used in electric engines, via a fuel cell

erm ....

ok, in other words:
o burning gasolin in a combustion engine has a energy efficency of about 5% to 9% ... roughly 90% is heat going into the air.

o hydrogen piped through a fuel cell has an efficency to generate electicity of about 95%.

o electricity piped through electric engines down onto the road has an efficiency of about 90% or in rare cases up to 97%.

Bottomline: as long as you can generate hydrogen with an better efficiency of 20% (and all practical useable ways of generating hydrogen are above 40% efficiency!!!) you have a net gain of energy of about 300%.

In other words: with X tons of oil you can drive x cars around the globe. Transforming X tons of oil into hydrogen drives 3x cars around the globe.

This number only gets better if you use more effective ways, like the way via methanol.

However: you can choose to not use oil but solar power or something else to get the hydrogen.

angel'o'sphere

P.S. this fact is known since I was 12 .... I'm now close to 40. So my question to GM: DO YOU GO FOR IT? Solving the energy crisis probably will finaly bring peace to earth .... if one of the GM managers has believes I only can hope they finaly, NOW, do something.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

The inevitable (and tired) 'cars v. computers' by core+plexus · 2003-01-13 09:05 · Score: 2

Wow. Over 100 years of automotive technology and this is as far as we've come. The damn thing *still* can't fly. For me that's the greatest drawback to driving on the road: other drivers on the road at the same time. Fortunately we have lots of roads here that a car like that will never get on. And no, flying for most people is not an alternative, considering how many crash at slow speeds in excellent visibility. Hey, how about a car that drives itself? Take the weakest and most insecure component out of the loop.

Oh, right: "If cars were like computers, we'd be driving a flying car that got 1,000 miles to the ounce"

Next?

Pentagon Seeks Robots: You could win $1 Million

Re:The inevitable (and tired) 'cars v. computers' by YrWrstNtmr · 2003-01-13 09:21 · Score: 2

The damn thing *still* can't fly.

Thank (your personal deity). I don't want all those idiots tooling around in their VTOL Mustangs over MY house.

Hey, how about a car that drives itself?

We're still years and years away from that. You'd need to refine radar resolution and control down to a few inches at the most.
A car that drives itself on an empty road is not too hard. Put it out on the chaotic streets, and you'd have to make it be able to avoid a dog AND a soccer ball at the same time. Without hitting the telephone pole.
Or have it make the decision...Soccer ball + kid or dog. You want a computer to recognise and decide that?
Re:The inevitable (and tired) 'cars v. computers' by PunchMonkey · 2003-01-13 10:03 · Score: 2

If cars were like computers, we'd be driving a flying car that got 1,000 miles to the ounce

And it'd only crash about 5 times a day.

--
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...

Good Concept, Bad Idea by LordYUK · 2003-01-13 09:06 · Score: 2

Gm states that you can tune your car to your specifications (handling, braking, etc) by loading a new program... People can barely drive as it is, is this REALLY a good idea? Of course, I would LOVE something like this. Then again, I also get the humor in the commercial that goes "Jim I think I fried the motherboard and the fatherboard too." And contrary to what you all are posting, I really like the futuristic look of this car... really cool. The freedom of vision is unprecedented. Just dont make it tooo customizeable. Crash your computer, oh well, crash your car... ::shrugs::

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

Wait a minute... by Daetrin · 2003-01-13 09:11 · Score: 2

Um, excuse me? I _like_ using my feet for gas and brakes. I don't really want to be doing that with my hands. If the car is supposed to be so modular, are they going to have an optional pedal package for those of us who prefer it?

I'm not even going to bother asking about getting a stick-shift version :)

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:Wait a minute... by TheSync · 2003-01-13 10:09 · Score: 2

Right, we need our hands free for cellphone & PDA use! Why not put all the UI in the feet? ;)
Re:Wait a minute... by Daetrin · 2003-01-13 13:20 · Score: 2

It only requires moving a hand from the steering wheel if you take your hand off the stick-shift in the first place :)
If you're on the freeway, the turns are so smooth you only need one hand. If you're on surface streets and in the process of shifting, you're going so slow you only need one hand.
As for the automatic vs stick-shift, i don't think we're going to get a choice with the fuel cell cars. They'll probably all be the new continual variable transmission or whatever it is.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

GTA Vice City by FreeLinux · 2003-01-13 09:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Another brilliant bit of motivation. Not!

I was already concerned about having the "pedals" on the steering wheel but, now you want me to face a roadway full of people that learned to drive by playing Vice City?????

God help us all.

Re:GTA Vice City by Dr+Caleb · 2003-01-13 09:41 · Score: 2

a roadway full of people that learned to drive by playing Vice City?????
Why not? The way everyone drives around here, I swear they lerned the rulz of da road ethier in Gran Turismo or Midtown Madness.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain

brake actuation by YrWrstNtmr · 2003-01-13 09:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

"The driver operates the brakes very intuitively by automatically tightening the hand grips in a braking situation,"

That's about the only part of this configuration I have a problem with. Frequently, you tighten your grip when on a bumpy road, tenseness, whatever. Having that be the braking signal may not be what you want at that time.

Joking aside, this is big. by thatguywhoiam · 2003-01-13 09:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

The AUTONOMY design is just about the most radical thing to happen to cars since Ford. Especially considering that it comes from GM, who is not exactly known for their forward thinking.

I've been following this thing from some time.

Quick points:
- You can't really 'skin' it. Yes, the shells are interchangeable, but at the factory. A home user bolting on one of these in his/her garage is opening up all sorts of safety concerns.
- Yeah, it's Hydrogen, but it's not gonna blow up. Certainly not as dangerous as the tank of gas in your car. Go read the Wired article if you want details. It's not a rolling Hindenberg.
- The wheels can pivot in any direction, which is why the steering is different. No more parallel-parking mishaps, hopefully.
- They are still more expensive than regular cars, price- and energy-wise, but the trend is looking quite hopeful.
- The space-savings inside the car itself are remarkable, and allow for all sorts of kooky things, such as a floor-to-ceiling windshield. (how weird would that be on the highway?)
- The HyWire is a concept. They won't all be 'ugly'. The whole thing is still a good 10 years away.

GM has gone on the record saying that, because of the elimination of most of the moving parts, these cars could realistically last 20 years. Which is a big concern for GM, obviously having a 20-year-turnover on cars is going to nail their bottom line... until you figure in the savings on engine parts, assembly lines for those engine parts, etc. Suddenly the AUTONOMY is a lot more attractive, as they might eventually cost a fraction of what regular cars do. GM recoups the lost turnover sales from the other 80% of the planet who can now afford a vehicle. And we get cool pivoting space-cars that cost $5000 and go for 2 decades.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.

Re:Joking aside, this is big. by paradesign · 2003-01-13 09:43 · Score: 2

were still waiting for a good looking skinMark Mainville do you hear me?

--
I want 2D games back.
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by itsyourunclebill · 2003-01-13 09:45 · Score: 2, Funny

EX-SQUEZE ME?! Yeah it's hydrogen but it's not as dangerous as the tank of gas in your car?? The article makes reference to a 10,000 PSI "tank" for this stuff. Wanna get your jollies - just knock the neck off any full compressed gas bottle and see what happens. Waddya mean the thing can't fly?
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by bourne · 2003-01-13 10:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

You can't really 'skin' it. Yes, the shells are interchangeable, but at the factory. A home user bolting on one of these in his/her garage is opening up all sorts of safety concerns.

I'm betting that your friendly neighborhood GM dealer would be happy to provide "Skinning" service so that you can rent a minivan skin for the holiday trip to grandma's and go back to your sedan for the next work week. If GM wants this idea to go over, as far as the dealers are concerned that idea is going to be massive. Dealers have been getting less and less return work over the last few decades; this is a way to send more business to the dealers. Of COURSE, they'll have to run a diagnostic before skinning, and suggest fixes for any problems they find...

I love this HyWire car. Too bad it's GM and not Ford doing it ;>
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by AnotherBlackHat · 2003-01-13 10:24 · Score: 2

EX-SQUEZE ME?! Yeah it's hydrogen but it's not as dangerous as the tank of gas in your car??
The article makes reference to a 10,000 PSI "tank" for this stuff. Wanna get your jollies - just knock the neck off any full compressed gas bottle and see what happens. Waddya mean the thing can't fly?

He didn't say it wasn't dangerous, he said it wasn't as dangerous as the 20+ gallons of gasoline we currently cart around.

If you sever the fule line on a standard automobile, the resulting fireball will put that puny flying gas bottle to shame.

No matter how you slice it, there's always going to be enough energy in the storage tank to move a car 300 miles. The only question is, how quickly will it spontaneously release on it's own.

-- this is not a .sig
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by Imperial+Tacohead · 2003-01-13 12:30 · Score: 2

Neither of those explosions were due to hydrogen. Rockets use liquid oxygen as their energy source, and the Hindenberg caught fire for reasons that had little to do with its hydrogen supply. I would link to the relevant information, but E2 is moving incredibly slowly today.
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by iggymanz · 2003-01-13 16:26 · Score: 2

well, liquid hydrogen as fuel plus liquid oxygen as oxidizer is the energy source for many liquid fuel rockets. The combination of the two made most of the Challenger's explosive energy release.

carrying pure oxygen, or for even more fun, liquid oxygen together with hydrogen in a car would be real folly, but of course no one is proposing doing that. Liquid oxygen by itself can turn many slowly burning things into explosives.
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by jelle · 2003-01-13 18:08 · Score: 2

In Europe, GM sells the 'Opel' brand of cars. They sell well but they always seem to make each of their models as ugly a possible. This new concept will allow them to explore a whole new field of ugliness that was impossible before.

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by Tailhook · 2003-01-13 20:09 · Score: 2

"And we get cool pivoting space-cars that cost $5000 and go for 2 decades."

Now this is naive.

$5000?

After we get done with the Bose, and the leather, and the integrated communications system, and the hopped-up high performance version, and the...

We're rich, remember?

Don't hold your breath for any $5000 cars that you will allow yourself to be seen driving.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:Joking aside, this is big. by awol · 2003-01-14 03:14 · Score: 2

I agree, but by way of example, dirve by wire has been around for some time at least to some extent. The 5 door honda civic (current model) has no drive train running through the middle of the car. The steering wheel is not mechanically connected to the steering mechanics, I think the Gearbox is similarly disjointed.

The layout of the floor pan is awesome in that vehicle. I can only imagine that the possibilities in this design are Awesome.

As for the "home user" installing new shells, I am not so sure I agree with you. I can anticipate a whole wave of kit cars based on the platform. Plus enhancements to the interior particularly become far more functional questions rather than structure. All in all, _real_ interesting.

--
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."

Saw this on South Park by certsoft · 2003-01-13 09:12 · Score: 2, Funny

The handgrips glide up and down for steering

That sounds too much like the gyroscopic type vehicle from South Park. I wonder if GM will offer the driver stability probes front and rear?

Re:A Very cool mix. BioDiesel and Hydrogen. by puzzled · 2003-01-13 09:14 · Score: 2

Do a google for BioDiesel ... apparently the next generation of filling stations for diesel vehicles are going to be ... in the drive through lane at McDonalds.

Sounds screwy but its true - used oil from deep fat fryers can easily be converted to a CARBON NEUTRAL FUEL ...

--
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo

Can we Overclock this thing dammit? by fraudrogic · 2003-01-13 09:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Capable of 97 mph and long-range travel, the HydroGen3 would satisfy most drivers' needs today.

Is this equivalent to the infamous quote: "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM..."?

I would hope that you could hack the "skateboard" so you can go faster than 97 mph. Can you imagine the mod chip business for this?

--
I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...

Re:Can we Overclock this thing dammit? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-01-13 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Capable of 97 mph and long-range travel, the HydroGen3 would satisfy most drivers? needs today."
Is this equivalent to the infamous quote: "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM..."?
Exactly how is this an equivilant? Speed limits are there for safety reasons. And your average person isn't going to nessesarily drive longer each day just because their car has a greater range.
Unless there are some major changes in motoring as a whole (like computer controled cars, driving at high speed on super-highways etc). Saying that it will satisfy most drivers needs today isn't silly at all.
Re:Can we Overclock this thing dammit? by sholden · 2003-01-13 14:42 · Score: 2

Look up the words today and ever in a dictionary. You'll find they aren't synonyms.
Re:Can we Overclock this thing dammit? by Quila · 2003-01-13 20:58 · Score: 2

Actually, most U.S. speed limits are set for political or revenue-gathering reasons, not for safety (excluding school zones, etc.).
Re:Can we Overclock this thing dammit? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-01-14 17:46 · Score: 2

Even if they were set for saftly, they wouldn't be that much faster.

FedEx Express? by autopr0n · 2003-01-13 09:16 · Score: 3, Funny

(second item on the blog)

TOKYO (Dec. 2, 2002) - Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express") and General Motors Corp ("GM") announced a joint program to advance fuel cell technology by conducting the first commercial test of a fuel cell vehicle in Japan.

Wouldn't that make their name expand to "Federal Express Express"? Is that like KFC chicken?

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:FedEx Express? by nochops · 2003-01-13 09:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Or Windows2000, powered by NT tychnology

--
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
Re:FedEx Express? by banzai51 · 2003-01-13 10:25 · Score: 2

Maybe their NIC card had a glitch.

This will work..... by Neck_of_the_Woods · 2003-01-13 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Only when a couple of things happen:

#1. People can't tell that it is not a gas driven car. Either by looks, power, or speed. The only exception will be if it end up having more power/speed.

#2. A law / bill is passed forcing them into market or giving such a large price break on them forces people to by them out of pure guilt.

What have you got under the hood there Franky? -- This is a turbo charged, water cooled, triple output, 4 switch power grid with a inverted v8 power cell.

It is going to take a little bit longer than your typical transition.

--
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead

Re:This will work..... by Jonny+Ringo · 2003-01-13 09:44 · Score: 2

#1. People can't tell that it is not a gas driven car

Here is an easy test you can do for that. Put you mouth up to the tail pipe and if you don't get a mouth full of water vapor you know your still using gas.
Re:This will work..... by iggymanz · 2003-01-13 09:58 · Score: 2

actually, gasoline puts out a huge amounnt of water vapor too in the exhaust...it's mostly made of chains of carbon, with hydrogen holding onto each carbon bond that isn't attached to another carbon

Re:Hand brakes? RTFA by enomar · 2003-01-13 09:18 · Score: 2, Informative

...SKF engineers confess that the all-in-one control is meant to emphasize the advantages possible with by-wire technology--it would work just as well with pedals to send the go/stop signals...

--

:wq

Cool! My car has cheat code buttons! by Spencerian · 2003-01-13 09:33 · Score: 2

To activate GOD mode, tap GAS GAS BRAKE BRAKE BRAKE.

To switch to MIB Speeder mode: BRAKE GAS GAS BRAKE BRAKE BRAKE GAS BRAKE.

WARNING: The PS2 console accessory that allows drivers to play "Grand Theft Auto III" while driving has resulted in serious injury and death. Sony cannot be held liable...

--
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.

Non-standard UI by orthogonal · 2003-01-13 09:38 · Score: 2

The gas and brakes are both on the steering wheel which may be placed on either the left or the right with little effort.

What's with the non-standard UI? Why fix something that isn't broken?

Who do these people thing they are? GNOME or KDE developers?

Everybody knows [reader please select one of:

Windows XP style gigantic red and blue buttons
Apple style one button mice and one menu bar
a pure command line interface, an ESCape meta key and a vi-style seperate insert mode
three different meta keys, a built-in Mayan calendar and a LISP interpreter in your emacs editor

]

is the only true interface!

All else is the devil's spawn! Burn the heretics!

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?

Re:Non-standard UI by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-01-13 11:06 · Score: 2

"The gas and brakes are both on the steering wheel which may be placed on either the left or the right with little effort."
What's with the non-standard UI? Why fix something that isn't broken?
Well, it's not like people overseas drive cars or anything.
Instead of having to develop 2 models of a car, you can just do one.
Re:Non-standard UI by orthogonal · 2003-01-13 12:08 · Score: 2

It was a joke, it was a joke!

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?

won't be available in 10 years by Jonny+Ringo · 2003-01-13 09:39 · Score: 2

from the site"We are driving to have compelling and affordable fuel cell vehicles on the road by the end of the decade."

In the mean time you can support the detroit project.. Its great, you can help make fun of the Bush administrations
"marijuana helps terrorists" campaign and bash SUV owners at the same
time :-)

Failed crash tests? by Cinnibar+CP · 2003-01-13 09:47 · Score: 2

One of the captions in the article pictures mentioned that the glass nose would never pass crash tests!

Obviously, if the forward crumple zone includes the windshield, nasty bad things can happen.

Concept cars are just that : concepts. Don't expect to see this sucker on the showroom floor any time soon. A number of major design changes would have to be made in the name of usability and safety before the technology is ready for prime time.

Hindenburg Myth applying to GM by stubblehead · 2003-01-13 09:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Click here to read the new belief on the Hindenburg tragedy. Essentially, "material used to coat the 'skin' of the airship, not hydrogen, was the cause of the disaster" - my father told me about this after watching a special on Discovery Channel a while back, which prompted my quick google search (I'm sure you can find more info online than just this one link - I just took one of the top results of "Hindenburg + hydrogen"). Of course, knowing the populace of this "1st" world country, it'll still take a lot of convincing before we advance towards these savior autos. Viva hybrid!... ity?...

-e

--

Rock!

*any* direction? by Gorimek · 2003-01-13 09:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

So can you just turn the wheels 90 degrees and drive sideways into the parking spot? Sweet! This will sell in San Francisco.

Re:*any* direction? by jez9999 · 2003-01-13 10:01 · Score: 3, Funny

So can you just turn the wheels 90 degrees and drive sideways into the parking spot? Sweet! This will sell in San Francisco. /me suddenly has mental image of hundreds of new ways for pedestrians to have accidents...

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Flying hywire car mods by Grendol · 2003-01-13 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe the hotrod community will offer aftermarket mods that will give us a flying car finally, 'Step 13: plumb the lines from the LOX tank to the combustion chamber after plumbing the Liquid hydrogen lines. Step 14: turbo pump throttle cables . . . '

Re:FedEx Express & KFC Chicken by SoCalChris · 2003-01-13 09:53 · Score: 2

Wouldn't that make their name expand to "Federal Express Express"? Is that like KFC chicken?

No, it wouldn't. Everyone knows Kentucky Fried Chicken changed their name to KFC because it's not really chicken anymore!

Is this car really all that? by jez9999 · 2003-01-13 09:58 · Score: 2

The steering, braking, acceleration, hell just about everything is electronically controlled. I'm no electrician, but wouldn't that kind of spell doom for you if there was an electronic failure?

Also, to echo what many others have said, braking/acceleration on the *steering wheel* is utterly ludicrous. They're very much suited to foot pedals.

Finally, is the hydrogen car the one which only outputs CO2, and no other emissions? I thought I heard that somewhere. Interesting that GM don't seem to give a shit about the emissions (that really is a big reason why new techs are being developed, isn't it?), as they don't mention it on their site.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Re:Is this car really all that? by banzai51 · 2003-01-13 10:37 · Score: 2

The steering, braking, acceleration, hell just about everything is electronically controlled. I'm no electrician, but wouldn't that kind of spell doom for you if there was an electronic failure?
Do you really believe you can drive any car made in the last 15 years given an electrical failure?
Re:Is this car really all that? by jez9999 · 2003-01-13 10:45 · Score: 2

You might not be able to drive any further, but I think you'd be able to steer roughly and stop. If you're cruising along at 70mph on the highway in a regular car and get an electronic failure, you should be able to brake because of the hydraulic brake pedal or at least the manual handbrake (and car which relies on electronics for breaking is totally insane), and you may lose power steering but you should still be able to manually steer the car to the hard shoulder. With a new, electronics-reliant car, you'd really be in shit if that happened.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Is this car really all that? by mohaine · 2003-01-13 10:59 · Score: 3, Informative

The steering, braking, acceleration, hell just about everything is electronically controlled. I'm no electrician, but wouldn't that kind of spell doom for you if there was an electronic failure?

Every US fighter jet has been all electronically controlled(aka, fly-by-wire) for 20+ years. No major problem, you just have to design with the problem in mind.

Also, to echo what many others have said, braking/acceleration on the *steering wheel* is utterly ludicrous. They're very much suited to foot pedals.

Why? Just because it has been this way for 100 years doesn't mean it is correct. Have you ever driven a motorcycle?

Finally, is the hydrogen car the one which only outputs CO2, and no other emissions? I thought I heard that somewhere. Interesting that GM don't seem to give a shit about the emissions (that really is a big reason why new techs are being developed, isn't it?), as they don't mention it on their site.

No. Hydrogen(H2) cars only put out H20. No carbon in fuel means no carbon emission. Of course, generating H2 could generate carbon emissions, but it doesn't have to.

--
(appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Re:Is this car really all that? by jez9999 · 2003-01-13 11:15 · Score: 2

Every US fighter jet has been all electronically controlled(aka, fly-by-wire) for 20+ years. No major problem, you just have to design with the problem in mind.

The thing is, it's pretty hard to 'design with the problem in mind' when you *rely* on electronics for control. If the electronics go, you've had it. Fighter jets are more expendable than cars/citizen's lives anyway. The military expect a few losses.

Why? Just because it has been this way for 100 years doesn't mean it is correct. Have you ever driven a motorcycle?

It's been this way for 100 years for a reason; it's very ergonomic. I have not driven a motorcycle, nor do I wish to. Their acceleration/brake mechanisms look hellish. As well as the fact that you don't get any proper shelter and if you're in an accident with a car, you're gonna get hurt.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Is this car really all that? by ciphertext · 2003-01-13 11:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

There are still a few fighter jets that rely on mechanical systems. A-10 Thunderbolt, F-14 Tomcat (not all systems fly-by-wire), and heavies such as the B-52's(not all components fly-by-wire) Galaxies (a few systems are software controlled), Orions, and Tanker/refuellers to name a few.

I agree with you on the propulsion and brake controls. The foot-pedals came into being because all of the systems on the first vehicles were mechanical. You can push a brake pedal with your legs harder than you could pull a brake lever. There also wasn't an acceptable way of attaching a mechanical device to a steering wheel or column during the early days of automobiles. Besides, would you want to try to turn a car that didn't use power steering with one hand while trying to simultaneously apply the brake lever? The fact that the propulsion and brake controls have remained as a foot-pedal has as much to do with tradition as it does with practicality. Now that software controls have finally made it to the automobile, the floor-pedals should be replaced with a digital component. Cruise control was the first attempt at moving propulsion from the floor to the control panel. It eliminated fatigue (in the calves) and increased the gas milage of the vehicle. Why not remove all control components from the floor if they no longer need to be? It would simplify chassis design, and provide for more leg room.

--
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Re:Is this car really all that? by Jubedgy · 2003-01-13 13:44 · Score: 2

Not necessarily. All you have to do is design a system where electricity must be removed to cause the brakes to engage. Essentailly it would be a fail safe. Here's an example of how a very simplified (very very) electronic braking system could work (IANAMECHANICALENGINEER):

Brake is forced to engage by a spring (a really strong one). To disengage brake, an electromagnet is powered which attracts the brake and compresses the spring. If power is lost, brake engages. If (for some reason) power fails ON (ie the electromagnet gets stuck in an energized state), just put a brbeaker switch or even a fuse nearby which can be removed. This'll provide a meechanical means to interrupt power to the magnets, thus engaging the brakes.

Again, that's a very simple example that only takes into account a power interruption and a fail 'on' scenario, and it offers very simple solutions which would probably cause the car to crash in some instances (ie brakes suddenly locking up, hit some ice, go spinning away into something)...those are problems I'll leave to people whose job it is to make sure that doesn't happen (I'm thinking maybe put a brake battery somewhere so a kind of anti-lock brake system can maintain wheel rotation in the event of a catastrophic loss-of-power failure or something).

As for the steering, a similiar emergency thing is probably viable, but nothing will beat redundancy. If you engineer something well enough and then put in 1 or 2 redundant systems beyond that, then chances are astronomically small that everything would fail. In the past 40-50 years of nuclear powered US naval vessels there hasn't been a single vessel lost due to the reactor and reactor control systems just giving up the ghost. If Naval Reactors can do it, then you can be damn sure someone else can do it.

--Jubedgy

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes

Driver switching by autopr0n · 2003-01-13 10:05 · Score: 2

First, they ask you which side you want to drive from--the controls slide easily to either side.

Wow, you'll be able to switch drivers without even stopping! This'll be great if you don't have a drivers license and your passenger does, and you get stopped by the cops :P

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Presented by Big Oil Conglomerates by Thing+1 · 2003-01-13 10:15 · Score: 2

"One of us! One of us!"

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

That rollover was faked... by orichter · 2003-01-13 10:28 · Score: 5, Funny

That rollover was faked for Dateline NBC( By Stone Phillips I believe). The Flintstones car was really quite stable, and generally can handle any size Brontosaurus ribs you can find. Damn liberal stone age media.....

Re:Breakdowns? by banzai51 · 2003-01-13 10:34 · Score: 2

Market forces eventually breakdown this model much like it has in the PC arena. Video and sound cars can be had for under $40. Besides, how many $30 fixes have you had with your car? Replacement oil cap? New plugs? Oil change? All these things are a direct replacement of parts, not a fix of them. Parts replacement will most likely be cheaper. Seriously, how many car repairs actually involve fixing a part rather than replacing a part?

It's 2003... Where is my flying car ? by da5idnetlimit.com · 2003-01-13 10:40 · Score: 2

No more reading of car news till I can have mine.

And Yes I dig Seloreans 8)

--
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker

OT: Automatic motorcycles by Bishop · 2003-01-13 10:43 · Score: 2

no automatic tranny on bikes since the "Hondamatic"

Ridley makes automatic motorcycles. I really don't know much about them beyond that. (Automatic cruisers?? Double blah.)

Computer-Car Metaphors Will Be More Appropriate by ruzel · 2003-01-13 10:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

The nerve center of Hy-wire?s electrical system is a single docking port or connection, which provides the electrical connection between the all-aluminum chassis and the fiberglass body. Because it uses fully electronic linkages and controls, the by-wire system simply plugs into the docking connection on the Hy-wire chassis.

To any /.er who ever said, "If we built cars like computers, no one would tolerate the the crashes." -- Your wish has come true.

Ever had the power windows bust on your car while the window is down? Imagine what fun you'll have when the by-wire system, shorts, gets cut or comes loose. Weee!
______________________

Meanwhile... by mmol_6453 · 2003-01-13 10:49 · Score: 2

...you have these drop-in replacement fuel cells that run on hydrocarbons(oil-based. Usually methane)... Both hydrocarbon and H2 fuel cells are available. Hydrocarbon fuel cells haven't taken off because, yes, Big Oil has a lot of control over a lot of America.

I see the skinnable car concept to be what will make this fly. There ought to be a good enough demand for it to warrent a production model, sometime in the next few years, presuming fuel cell tech improves. What they need is something that'll robustly run on gasoline. Make a set of ANSI standards for cell dimensions and shape, and you'll eventually be able to replace your old, outdated fuel cell with one that delivers more power, more efficiency, or both.

As long as hydrogen cells are built to the standards, and hydrogen is available in major cities, its use will slowly increase.

--
What's this Submit thingy do?

Re:Meanwhile... by Planesdragon · 2003-01-13 11:31 · Score: 2

Hydrocarbon fuel cells haven't taken off because, yes, Big Oil has a lot of control over a lot of America.

Not in the way you think. Fuel cells are "taking off"--just not very fast, considering how underpowered they (still) are.

It's not "size category" that they're comparing in--it's price. For $23000 Americans want a full size car with some kick, not a micromobile.
Re:Meanwhile... by ealar+dlanvuli · 2003-01-13 12:13 · Score: 2

Make a set of ANSI standards for cell dimensions and shape

You think the auto industry cares about standards? The only way they make money is by selling the same breakable cars year after year with a slightly redone body and little to no technical improvement.

--
I live in a giant bucket.

Evironmantal Horse-Puckies by budgenator · 2003-01-13 10:55 · Score: 2

Actualy your right, the car realy isn't a significant factor in the environment. Greenhouse gasses in order of warming potential are

SulpherOxide gasses, come predominatedly from Volcanoes
Methane, come predominately from farts with termites being the biggest source
Water vapor comes predominately from the oceans
Carbon Dioxide, cars put out an average of 2.5 lbs/day of CO2, People put out 3.5 lbs/day

Switching to a Hydrogen based economy is something that will happen eventualy but the benefits gained from it will be primarily psycological rather than practical

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Are you nuts? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-13 11:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pretty much every useful piece of technology was developed by a private corporation. Don't try to tell me about NASA - velcro could have been developed a hell of a lot more cheaply if they hadn't had to fund orbital missions to do it! If anything holds progress back, it's governments, who make entire industries wait while they dither. The next tech revolution will be biotech, and the Western governments are doing their level best to drive it offshore with their heavy-handed regulations!

What the hell are you talking about? The only reason there is a strong biotech industry is because of the government. Government grants from the NSF and NIH fund enormous amounts of fundamental research. The applied research in corporations would never be where it is now if it hadn't been for government research paving the way. The corporations would probably have never developed some of the underlying ultra-high risk science.

Pass me some of whatever you are smoking.

Can't wait for those radio traffic reports by Winterblink · 2003-01-13 11:09 · Score: 2

Hydrogen powered cars you say? :)

"Things to watch out for on your way home from work tonight, a stalled car in the right hand lane of highway 2. There's also a fender bender downtown near 58th street. Road crews are busy repairing ... "

--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn

Why Hydrogen is Interesting by starseeker · 2003-01-13 11:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

For those of us who haven't figured this out yet.

Obviously, hydrogen is not an energy source when used in a fuel cell. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to be a replacement for gasoline. Gasoline is not an energy source in the same way hydrogen isn't. Gasoline is millions of years of stored solar energy.

It took millions of years to create the raw materials we use to make gasoline. Once we run out (and we will run out - we are taking it out faster than nature puts it back - it's just a question of when) we will have to either make more gas ourselves or split water to make hydrogen. There's no special difficulty hydrogen presents in this regard - anything we use to run cars is going to be in the end an energy storage device, unless we have nuclear/solar powered cars. Both are impractical, for different reasons. So we have two problems in the future - generate power to replace the huge stored supplys we current are tapping, and store it for use in automobiles.

People seem to assume hydrogen is being proposed as a power generator. FALSE. Hydrogen is being proposed as a way to store energy for use in cars, which can't generate power on site in most cases. Gas is stored power - so is hydrogen when used in a fuel cell. We can't practically create gasoline ourselves - it's much easier to split water and recover the hydrogen. Plus fuel cells are extremely clean and don't give us the byproducts gasoline does. An extra benefit.

That leaves the question of where to get the power to drive this system. That's a completely separate problem, and one of the most crucial. Solar and wind are the two major untapped as far as non-nuclear power goes. Nuclear isn't practical in the us IN ITS CURRENT FORM. Fusion power is under development, and if a power producing fusion plant can ever be created, that will provide lots of power with byproducts that decay in hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. That may be managable. Otherwise, we will have to adjust ourselves to run on only what power we can recover from solar and wind.

It's never popular to say it politically, but we can in fact do a great deal to lower our power consumption. Better consumer habits, more efficient homes and utilities, smaller cars, etc. etc. etc. If we can't solve fusion, the cost of power will force this change to take place. It's not an argument of "we shouldn't develop renewables and hydrogen because they can't deliever our current level of power." Sorry folks, it doesn't work like that. Our current level of power generation is unsustainable unless we shift almost totally to nuclear power. Peroid. We don't know exactly how long it will last, but it WILL come to an end. What is up to us is how we cope with it. I'd rather be prepared with the best we can do in alternatives. Hydrogen might allow us to run cars after we can no longer produce gasoline cheaply. Plus it's a cleaner system when the source power is produced from clean sources. It doesn't provide gluttonous power, true, but it might allow us to sustain the worthwhile parts of our lifestyle. That's why this is a development to be cheered on.

--
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org

Re:Why Hydrogen is Interesting by mark_lybarger · 2003-01-14 02:07 · Score: 2

you state that we will run out of the raw materials used for gasoline, but that includes some huge assumptions.

1. our use of this fuel continues (i wonder if early 1900's late 1800's coal there were environmentalists pushing to stop coal use and find another fuel for mass usage?).

2. the supply of the raw materials is really less than we'll ever use. no one knows exactly how much supply of those raw materials exists. people have guesses, and all the time they keep finding more and more. it's like it's just seeping up from some where. aliens giving energy to that inhabited planet or sum such.

at any rate, i think it's much more plausable to assume that we'll NOT run out of gasoline raw materials than it is to assume. from recent events i think we can assume that our usage of gasoline raw materials will decrease. this decrease will probably be slow in order to protect the huge economies built around the industry, but it looks to be in progress.

you also state that you don't see hydrogen/gasoline as a power generator (able to generate power). then you state that they're both stored power. most would conclude that if they're stored power, they're able to generate power for use in a vehicle. it's more a transfer of power or energy from the source to the consumer, but it's still generating power. ultimately (as far as we currently know) all our power comes from that big bright think up in the sky. it gets stored in various elements around the planet and eventually we harvest it for our needs.
Re:Why Hydrogen is Interesting by hcdejong · 2003-01-14 23:29 · Score: 2

the supply of the raw materials is really less than we'll ever use. no one knows exactly how much supply of those raw materials exists. people have guesses, and all the time they keep finding more and more.
However much there is, it's a finite supply, so it will run out eventually. Probably somewhere this century.
this decrease will probably be slow in order to protect the huge economies built around the industry, but it looks to be in progress
Currently, oil consumption is increasing every year. And that's a trend that looks set to continue. A decrease is decades off.
Re:Why Hydrogen is Interesting by mark_lybarger · 2003-01-15 00:21 · Score: 2

it won't run out if people stop using it which some believe very likely to happen this century. yes the supply is finite, but noone can accurately determine what that amount is.

Re:wrong numbers by jovlinger · 2003-01-13 12:22 · Score: 2

depends on where the manufacturer put the redline no? I know the s2000 revs like a hummingbird, and the car of my teen dreams, the Lancia Delta HF Integrale, could be chipped to allow it to overrev a 1000rpm. Apparently, with the chip in, it would outpace a ferarri the first couple of seconds off the line (after which all it would see are two ferrari like taillights disappearing over the horison).

Could be I'm misattributing the anecdote and chippage from the CRX, tho.

The industry... by mmol_6453 · 2003-01-13 12:42 · Score: 2

...isn't good at economics, anyway. One of the things that contributed the the Great Depression of the 30s was market saturation. Newly mass-produced durable appliances like washing machines and dryers were selling like hotcakes, so they kept stepping up production. Finally, they were stuck with this huge amount of stock, and the market was saturated.

The auto industry turned around and did the same thing last year. 0% financing kept their sales running, sure, but it sure saturated the market. Now dealers have to depend on payments, because cars aren't selling. Ford, etc. is up the creek because dealers aren't buying cars.

On the bright side, there'll be a lot of 2002 model vehicles to be found in good condition on the used car market.

Considering how much like an engine a fuel cell is, I suspect there'll be at least enough standardization to be able to swap models.

Even if it isn't a sound business decision in the long-term, one company putting out swappable fuel cells will get a disproportionate amount of business. People who like to mod their cars will want one. People who like being able to choose between high-power and high-milage will want one. Other companies will have to follow suit. That's why you have organizations like OPEC--to prevent someone from upsetting the norm.

Besides, among US-based competitors, there's what, Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and GM? (not sure what the Japenese big-shots are.) They own a bunch of different sub-brands, which generally use simaler parts.

--
What's this Submit thingy do?

My Mother-in-Law's hand brake by extra88 · 2003-01-13 12:43 · Score: 3, Funny

My mother-in-law doesn't drive but she has a hand brake on the dash of any car in which she rides. It's not very effective but effectiveness improves if she makes a screeching sound, not unlike the sound of squealing brakes.

Re:wrong numbers by Afrosheen · 2003-01-13 13:21 · Score: 2

I was illustrating a point and thus pulled some numbers from my nether regions. Thanks for supplying both a sharp razor and the hair to be split. Regardless of your nitpicking, it still stands that peak hp is made with much higher rpms than peak torque on most cars.

Now I recall that the ultra-low rpm torque number belongs to the new Neon SRT. The link is here: http://www.allpar.com/neon/neon-srt-4.html, scroll down and you'll find "SRT-4 offers continuous torque peak from 2000 rpm to 4800 rpm".

The entire design opens safety concerns by Latent+Heat · 2003-01-13 14:40 · Score: 2

GM is a well spring of all kinds of goofy ideas. Their big boner in the 1970's was that Wankel (rotary) engines would take over, and that rotary engines were so easy to make, their Hydramatic transmission division was going to build them. That classic rust-bomb the Chevy Vega has zero interior room because it had a high driveline tunnel to accomodate a rotary engine, and then they produced it with the famous 30,000 mile durability "look Ma, no cast-iron sleeves" long-stroke aluminum tractor engine. I guess their 90's boner was putting seatbelts into the doort.

Sit in an Impala, Taurus, Camry and what do you see? They have these big honking "A-pillars" on each side of the windshield connecting the frame to the roof. The roof is structurally connected to the frame, which gives those cars such good Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test ratings -- the high stiffness also helps with handling (did the reviewer say that the Hy-Wire didn't handle worth anything, that it plowed straight ahead at any speed over 35 MPH?).

GM brags that the Hy-Wire has this dinky 1-foot crush zone on the front of the "skateboard." Go to the IIHS web site and look at their crunched cars -- for the cars rated "Good", the whole freakin front end of the car is a crush zone, and the whole passenger compartment from frame through A-pillars to roof is a safety cage that resists entry of stuff from the crush zone. This skateboard car with "skinnable" superstructure is an engineering joke because yes, people crash into things and you want them to be able to "take the hit."

Besides the safety concern, I would guess that it doesn't handle very well, borne out by the review. There is a reason why cars are build the way they are.

Re:The entire design opens safety concerns by MatriXOracle · 2003-01-13 16:14 · Score: 2

GM brags that the Hy-Wire has this dinky 1-foot crush zone on the front of the "skateboard." Go to the IIHS web site and look at their crunched cars -- for the cars rated "Good", the whole freakin front end of the car is a crush zone, and the whole passenger compartment from frame through A-pillars to roof is a safety cage that resists entry of stuff from the crush zone. This skateboard car with "skinnable" superstructure is an engineering joke because yes, people crash into things and you want them to be able to "take the hit."

You might want to do some research into the ways cars are designed. Specifically, the difference between "unit body" and "body-on-frame" design. The Hy-Wire, with it's skateboard, is essentially the latter. Body on frame designs make crumple zones less important.
Re:The entire design opens safety concerns by Tailhook · 2003-01-13 20:14 · Score: 2

There is a reason why cars are build the way they are.

Yeah. There's a reason when big honking trucks^H^H^H^H^H^H SUVs are popular too.

Thanks EPA. You made the passenger cars too small.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!

GM is quite fishy with zero emission vehicles by Edmund+Blackadder · 2003-01-13 15:12 · Score: 2

Couple of years ago it looked like GM had made a breaktrough with their electric car, the EV-1.

It looked good, it ran on roads, and it had decent range. And most important of all, people that owned it loved it.

The car is now discontinued and GM wanted to (and probably did) retrieve all the cars it had leased to the public and destroyed them.

Some people that leased the car liked it so much they kept sending unsolicited checks to GM hoping that their car wont get taken away.

Now there are no mor eEV1s on the road (as far as i know) and the new electric vehicles getting sold are some ridiculous looking golf cart like thingies, that would be dangerous to drive on the road.

And people are saying that maybe GM discontinued the electric car because they did not want to have a succesful 0 emission vehicle.

It does seem very suspicious. The car did not seem to have any major problems. Even if it did have some minor ones, it certainly warranted further development. There was nothing in this car that said "this car is an utter failure. we must recall all cars on the road and stop any kind of RD in this area".

Now GM is showing off hydrogen technology, which is of course many years away. So i as i said it seems suspicious.

If you ask why would GM surrender their obvious advantage in that field. Well it just so happens california was about to enforce some pretty tough emisions requirements, which are now contested by the autoindustry on the ground that they are way too difficult to implement.

A succesful electric car would have been bad for that argument.

Other things that make me suspicious are features like that removable wheel, which are largely pointless, and yet so bizarre that they basicly communicate that this is a car that will not be in production any time soon.

Re:GM is quite fishy with zero emission vehicles by DaveSchool · 2003-01-13 18:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

They stopped making them for several reasons.

A. Not that many people were buying them. In terms of total sales, they were a failure. They weren't supposed to be a high-volume car, but they didn't meet sales projections. The people who owned them loved 'em, but most people didn't want a car that could only go about 50 miles from home.

B. GM lost money on it. Even with all the gov't grants and tax breaks, they still lost money.

GM also couldn't just "sell them". The cars were leased with charging stations which were still considered GM property. Also, there were no aftermarket replacement parts, buyers would need GM to make aftermarket parts for them, costing GM even more money. (No aftermarket supplier would make replacement parts for this car, there are too few to make up the money spent on development and production of the parts.

And most importantly, GM had millions, probably hundred of millions of dollars of development in these cars. That's why you had to lease one from GM, they didn't want Ford or Honda to buy one, steal all their ideas, then have them make a car that was profitable, because they had to pay basicly nothing for R&D. This is the same reason all the cars had to be returned to GM. It would be nice if GM let the cars go, so Ford or Honda could make a new/better electric car, but GM's a business, not a charity.

Also, these cars would cost something like $70-80 grand to purchase, that's a lot for an "economy" car.

Radical? by thegrommit · 2003-01-13 15:42 · Score: 2

Riiiiight.

As noted above, Honda have had both the Insight and Civic on sale for quite a while. There's a good review of the hybrid Civic on arstechnica.

Re:Radical? by thegrommit · 2003-01-13 17:25 · Score: 2

Radical thinking would require redesigning communities to remove the need for large number of relatively inefficient vehicles being driven by solo drivers twice a day.

Failing that, Hondas efforts are a more practical option - i.e. one that makes use of the existing infrastructure. GM and Ford have had access to hydrogen fuel cell technology for years through their alliance with Ballard, yet this concept is all they have?

They balance each other by ndogg · 2003-01-13 16:46 · Score: 2

Firstly, I must state that I trust neither the government nor big corporations, because they are both extremes on opposite sides. The government does concern itself with people's welfare and safety, and will spend money on that, but it often doesn't have the intelligence to use it efficiently and properly. Big corporations are very, very good at that, but if drowning children in the sea were legal and profitable, they'd find the most efficient means to do that. They do bring about progress, but without government, there would be little protection from its selfishness and greed. The government's purpose is to protect people from that. If there were no big corporations, we'd still be stuck in the Middle Ages where there wasn't even running water. They are both necessary evils for Western society.

Now that makes me wonder, what about all those tribal societies around the world? I would dare say that most of the people in them are living more luxurious lifestyles than most of us. Very few of them ever actually have to worry about food, because they know their environment so well. Mostly, they just have to worry about the family and friends they have around them. The biggest worry that most of them would have is the encroachment of Western society and culture, which has a tendancy to destroy the environment they depend on so much, which may, in turn, destroy them. They don't have governments, and they don't have big corporations.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"

Also, electrical steering ? by RallyNick · 2003-01-13 17:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

They said steering would be operated by an electrical motor... Wtf happens when your motor dies? And I'm not talking about the first few years, but like 20yrs/200kmi down the road. Yeah, I know there are aviation/military spec motors, but they don't live forever either and probably get replaced periodically. All it takes to lose steering is a loose/corroded conncetion, possibly inside the motor, and 20 years is a looong time.

Fyi all steering systems on (I belive) all cars have a direct metal-on-metal conncetion between steering wheel and front wheels. This can't fail unles some big chunk of steel breaks, and that's why steering failure is the last thing you have to worry about while driving today. Yes, power steering can fail in the sense that you lose the power assistance, but you can still turn if you force the wheel.

Another thing that puzzles me, they claim it gets rid of steering & brake fluids to be more enviro-friendly. But then they say it still uses conventional (Brembo) calipers. I'll be damned...

Yep, smog is a problem with diesels by Goonie · 2003-01-13 18:21 · Score: 2

Additionally, the particulate emissions are nasty (do all sorts of lung damage, apparently).

Apparently this is a much bigger problem in sunnier climes (California, Australia) than it is in Europe, hence California is currently working on a new set of emission restrictions specifically to tackle these pollutants from diesels. It's apparently going to be very difficult for diesels (trucks, not only cars) to meet them.

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Designer cars by horza · 2003-01-13 20:37 · Score: 2

GM has gone on the record saying that, because of the elimination of most of the moving parts, these cars could realistically last 20 years. Which is a big concern for GM, obviously having a 20-year-turnover on cars is going to nail their bottom line... until you figure in the savings on engine parts, assembly lines for those engine parts, etc.

The very first GSM mobile phone that came out would work well today. It doesn't stop people from changing their phone every year for the latest 'trendy' mobile. Once the prices, as you say, drop significantly then it opens up a whole new market for designer cars that people can change on a far more regular basis.

Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France

Read the Article by Quila · 2003-01-13 20:41 · Score: 2

It is radical. Honda just put hybrid engines in standard car chassis. GM's car is a complete departure from standard thinking on how a car is built.

Foot controls by Quila · 2003-01-13 20:53 · Score: 2

Why? Just because it has been this way for 100 years doesn't mean it is correct.

You're right in meaning, but not in fact. I got a tour of a WWI Model T recently. The girl who could drive it said it really was an acquired talent. The pedal layout and functionality (including pedal gear selection) is absolutely nothing like what we have in cars today.

You could even go from forward to reverse or back with one press of the pedal, explaining all those 1920s cars backing up and going forward so quickly.

Another price advantage by Quila · 2003-01-13 21:02 · Score: 2

Since they are planning to make the entire line of cars off of a couple base skateboard platforms, they'll get a HUGE economy of scale.

I know many cars today are built on the same platform, but it's with many modifications to the base. This technology will allow them to produce thousands of exactly the same chassis to cover several lines of cars.

How will they handle? by Quila · 2003-01-13 21:04 · Score: 2

I've heard some bad things. The unsprung weight at the wheels is very important to the handling of a car, and if this thing integrates electric motors into the wheels, it's going to handle like a pig.

Making methanol from thin air. by Moderation+abuser · 2003-01-13 23:44 · Score: 2

Energy storage is the issue with electric vehicles, chemical storage like petroleum and methanol which can be reformed into CO2 and hydrogen for use in a fuel cell are the best methods found so far, but the problem with these is the manufacture from oil or highly intensive farming and the greenhouse gases which are produced as byproducts.

Now, using these technologies,

http://www.astronomynow.com/breaking/990326mars/
http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/chem/dolchem/html/co mp /methanol.html

It may be possible to make methanol fuel for a fuel cell out of thin air. Use solar energy to provide the power required to drive the reaction.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:But? by TheCrimsonUnbeliever · 2003-01-14 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a huge difference between that and this - Keeping your house warm is something you do because you need to - If HeatB is cheaper and cleaner thant HeatA then you do it Cars on the other hand are something embedded in our culture - Think about all the different types of racing we enjoy - Think about the big American ideal of gliding down a empty stretch of freeway in a huge caddy with the top down Think about the people who mod this and mod that on their cars - Will they be able to do that with a Hydrogen Burner (and where does the electricity come from? - Burning things or atomics? - or the small percent of power that comes from clean sources?) I don't think so I know my first post sounded like a Troll - But I was just pointing out that people love their cars - And it will be a hard thing to change

The whole "We won't change" thing by tarawa · 2003-01-14 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is hard to say what will happen, fuel cells have been the promise for years and years. This GM venture appears promising but who knows what will happen even 5 or 10 years down the road.

I love my gasoline powered car, it's reliable and fairly inexpensive to operate and maintain. However, I do definately see the advantages of hydrogen over gasoline if the technology is made as affordable as gasoline. The good effects of a cleaner environment will the clincher in the deal for most people once prices of both types of vehicles are roughly the same. Hydrogen is definately the future and GM and many other auto manufacturers see that.

Now I don't necessarily think the gasoline engine is going to completely go away, but I think over time it will be relegated to very specific jobs and for car enthusiast. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think that days of the internal combustion engine have more days behind it than it does ahead of it.

Slashdot Mirror

Review Of GM's HyWire Hydrogen Concept Car

209 of 471 comments (clear)