Environmentally Friendly Race Cars, Military Vehicles

jackelfish writes "The non-profit organization IdéeVerte Compétition has created a 'space age' race car that runs on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane or butane) and is lubricated with sunflower oil. Sponsored by the European Space Agency, the car recently broke the 'LPG powered vehicle' speed record of 315 km/h. The car also utilizes space technologies such as a titanium fuel tank, heat shielding developed for the Ariane launch vehicles and an EGNOS satellite navigation system to determine the speed, acceleration and position of the car in real-time." And reader gkbarr writes "Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."

Comments

Environment Friendly Military?!

[formal_entity]

Haha, is there anything more harmful to it's environment than a military vehicle? After all they are created to destroy and kill things.

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[imsabbel]

Think different!
More military->more wars->less humans-> better enviroment :)

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[zakezuke]

Haha, is there anything more harmful to it's environment than a military vehicle?

Several million soccer moms in Ford Explorers averaging 11-14mpg might qualify.

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[SylvesterTheCat]

Is there anything more inaccurate than sweeping generalizations?

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[Grym]

More military->more wars->less humans-> better enviroment

Sadly, the fact of the matter is that is not far from the truth.

People like to advocate decreasing CO2 production as a means for controlling global warming. However, if one puts the CO2 composition of the atmosphere on a timeline of human history they'd find only TWO instances where the exponential trend temporarily declines. These two points in human history? World War II and the Great Depression. Meaning, while lip-service like the Kyoto treaty and the inventions mentioned in this article can't hurt, the only meaningful way to stop the trend is well... a catastrophe.

-Grym

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[anishm]

Including the last ?

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[imsabbel]

@AC
I prefer biological or chemical weapons.
All those carbon dioxide from the burning buildings isnt good for the athmosphere. not to mention clorine compounds, nitrous exocites, ect. Plus those human fat burning gives such black smoke...

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[lp-habu]

During the Vietnam war, the DoD reported that the Air Force was working on engines which generated less smoke. That was true, but it might have had something to do with the fact that those long black trails behind the US fighters made them pretty easy for the Vietnamese to spot. As it happens the engines in the Vietnamese MiGs produced very little smoke -- that had nothing to do with environmental considerations, either.

I am confident that there are reasons other than environmental considerations for any change made to military equpment, and I would be rather dismayed to learn that there were not.

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[gwiner]

...And since when are humans less important than the environment? Screw the trend, the earth will adapt or die. Surely we can invent a technology that will allow us to breath CO2, and live underwater.

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[zakezuke]

Where do you live that there aren't any emissions standards?

This is kind of off topic, but never the less I must point out that different countries, different states, cities and counties have different emission standards. For example in Washington there is no testing of vehicles older than 20 years or so. I forget the exact year but I know I sold my 1979 Toyota corolla last year, and I sold it after it was exempt from the testing requirement. Also only larger cities are required to test vehicles, rural areas are exempt.

That being said the beat-up pickup trucks that get less than 10mpg and spew thick black smoke the person spoke about could be from a state or country that has different standards for older vehicles, or perhaps vehicles used for agriculture or other off-road purpose. In my experience 12mpg is more typical of well maintained pickup trucks with 5.6l+ engines without electric ignition and fans where 14mpg is more typical with those improvements like for example the modern Ford Explorer which I believe has a 5.6l engine.

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[karniv0re]

Yeah, this is true. However, I have to say, the Military in general (at least what I've seen in the last 4 years I've been in), is very environmentally conscious. Not because we're a bunch of Greens (well, I am, but it would be rather inaccurate to speak for everyone), but because it's the right thing to do.

A few weeks ago we had an Field Training Excercise at a camp in the middle of Nebraska. After we were done, we cleaned up not only our own garbage, but a bunch of spent shotgun shells that some hicks had left out there. When I looked around, the place looked like it hadn't been touched.

But then again, we're a medical unit, and we have helicopters instead of tanks and bombs, so I guess this is pretty one-sided.

Re:Environment Friendly Military?!

[orasio]

You mean that they create the demand of the oil that you need to kill iraquis for??
I don't think that is enough, that is too intrincate a reasoning.
I believe _(and the GP does, probably) that military vehicles are worse because they are an aid to kill people.
I believe that people is one of the most important things I want to subsist in my environment, so they contribute to harming the environment.

An observation

[daniil]

Whenever some vehicle is called "environmentally friendly," this title always seems to be referring to its fuel consumption. It's as if fuel exhaust gases were all there is to environment. What seems to be neglected in these cases is that building the vehicle (or any other machine) also takes up resources, pollutes, etc. Is there any research being done in these areas as well, or are they simply not deemed as important as reducing air pollution from exhaust fumes?

Re:An observation

[moonbender]

There is research done in this direction (not by the DOD I would assume) - each piece of equipment has an "environmental backpack" which consists of the emissions generated and the resources used during it's research and development. Obviously, this is not exactly an easy thing to define clearly, or for that matter to measure. Also, the emissions generated during it's usage are typically considered more important simply due to the fact that the environmental backpack is a fixed cost (per item) while otherwise the emissions increase with usage. I guess (but don't know) the direct emissions of, say, a car are greater than the backpack emissions after a few months of average usage.

This all applies very much to computer parts, which have a relatively huge backpack compared to their direct emissions (ie. by power consumption): Recent research by the German-based Wuppertal Institute as part of a large-scale investigation of Digital Europe showed that a 200g handheld computer requires the equivalent of 58 kilograms of raw materials in its manufacture, a massive overhead that we rarely think about. (from an undated article)

Re:An observation

[kfg]

. . .are they simply not deemed as important as reducing air pollution from exhaust fumes?

It's always easier to get a warm, fuzzy feeling by focusing intently on one small parameter, doing something about that, and thinking you've solved the problem than it is to acknowledge the whole picture.

Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

When I pointed out to a friend that part of the cost of replacing older, less "enviromentally friendly" cars with new cars was the pollution inherent in dispossing of the old car prematurely and manufacturing the new one (not to mention the pollution inherent in earning the money to buy the new car, and the pollution inherent in. . .) he was stunned. He'd simply never thought of that issue. All he'd ever heard about were emmisions, so that's all he ever thought about.

It's almost always more 'friendly' in the long run to use existing systems until they naturally expire than it is to replace them with new systems before that time. After all, isn't that why many of us spend so much time maintaining existing code base?

Is there any research being done in these areas as well. . .

Oh sure. There are people, such as myself, who give a considerable amount of thought to the issue, and put a certain amount of work into it as well, but after doing it for a few decades you are inevitably faced with an issue:

Until the skies are all thick and brown, and the oil is all gone, nobody much is going to care. It always boils down to a dietary issue with shades of laziness on top("Yo, have we got enough money for a pizza?" Cool, have it delivered").

When that time comes there will be those of us standing around with solutions that might have been, although at that point largely irrelevant because, while they would have kept the air from becoming thick and brown, won't, in and of themselves, make the air any less thick.

There's an eternal cycle of creating your own problems, than patting yourself on the back for being clever enough to wangle your way out of them, and so far as I've ever been able to determine from observation, the purpose of man as machine seems to be to incessantly worry about the future while doing nothing practical about it, all the while regreting the past.

I don't understand it, but it seems to make people "happy."

KFG

Re:An observation

[Comatose51]

The point of the research really wasn't about being environmentally friendly. The title and snippet are misleading. The DoD's goal is to make a more efficient vehicle so that it can operate with less logistical support. Logistical support is a huge issue with the military. How far an army or navy can move or strike has always been limited by that. Even while the Germans were chasing the British across north Africa, they were limited by the lack of fuel. The problem still exists today. It is estimated that for every person on the ground fighting, there's another 4 people doing logistics to keep him supplied. A military as technologically advance as the US will have a huge logistics train. So a more efficient vehicle is always a very desirable thing. If the vehicle happens to be environmentally friendly, then all the better but that wasn't the point. So to answer your question, I really doubt that the DoD researched environmentally friendly manufacturing processes.

Re:An observation

[WIAKywbfatw]

Sorry, but I disagree. The adverts I've seen for environmentally-friendly vehicles don't just emphasise their fuel consumption, they also stress how recyclable the cars are.

Making anything takes time, resources and energy, and something like a car, however green it is, is going to require a fair amount of all three in its manufacture. The start of a car's life, when it's built, isn't going to be where the best non-fuel-related savings are going to be made: even the most efficient build process wouldn't be much improvement over the efficiency that car manufacturers already display.

The biggest savings are to be made at the other end, at the end of a car's usefulness, when it can be either scraped (as in the case with most cars nowadays) or recycled (as will be the case with newer, greener cars when they are retired).

But, let's face it, only a small percentage of car buyers think about anything before or beyond their use of their vehicle. To most people, a car's initial cost, fuel efficiency, maintenance and resale value are the only things that matter. Given that, it's natural that fuel efficiency becomes the environmental selling point, because it's about the money in your pocket now, which is a concept that most people grasp straight away.

Bottom line: people are looking at those areas that you mention, and they have done something about it but you don't sell a Toyota Prius over a Hummer on the basis of how easy it will be to junk in 10, 15 or 20 years' time.

Re:An observation

[bob beta]

Further, many 'environmentally friendly' vehicles earn that mark in part because they're made with the 'new materials,' i.e. plastics that biodegrade rapidly.

The ironic thing in this is that for us cheap old fucks (with our 10-25 year old cars because we REFUSE to leap on the 'trade up every other year' marketing bullshit), engine parts made of the most durable plastics that are reasonable are better than the automakers cleverly getting their 'planned obsolescence' material choises labeled 'green.'

Cram your 'corn' plastic, Detroit.

Re:An observation

[jackelfish]

I agree that if you already have a vehicle that is working well, not belching black smoke into the air, then you would use up more resources and add to the pollution problem by going out and purchasing a new electric hybrid or the like. However, if people did not go out and purchase these vehicles and new technologies then we would all still be driving around in Model T Fords. That said, perhaps we all should be driving the Model T, apparently it got 100 km to every 6.7 litres of fuel (about 35 Miles/Gallon). People are People and they like shiny new things.

Re:An observation

[jackelfish]

The title was originally meant only for the race cars. The Hummer, while being environmentally friendly, was added to the story. That said, perhaps the title should have read Environmentally friendly race cars and millitary vehicles, oh my!

Re:An observation

[bear_phillips]

It's almost always more 'friendly' in the long run to use existing systems until they naturally expire than it is to replace them with new systems before that time.

I doubt this statement is entirely true. What people need to do is look at update gross polluters. Cars that put out a disprortionate amount of pollution. An example, my 1969 GMC truck runs fine. It also only gets 9mpg, has no catalytic converter and is an environmentalist nightmare. I could drive it for many more miles. From an enviromental standpoint, it would probably be cleaner to build a new Toyota Prius that gets 60mpg.

Re:An observation

[mabhatter654]

But design & manufacture pollutants can be more easlily controlled at a central point and are one-time occurances. That's the true benifits of the focus on electric power for all sorts of stuff. Because it allows you to build one, well regulated, super-polluter...and have the local devices be extremely clean.

Things like lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws are "simpler" devices, but pound-for-pound nearly 10x as bad as gas-guzzlers like the Hummer.

The real factor in the military's decision for fuel performance is the cost to get the fuel to the troops. Under the current numbers it takes 17 gallons of fuel to get 1 gallon in the tank of a front-line vehical. The army units getting whipped in Iraq right now are the ones that are part of hauling around those "17 Gallons" not intended to be fighting...if you can cut the number of PEOPLE hauling gas [and supplies for themselves!] around then you have fewer people in harms way. The other advantage is the movement/surprise factor. A more effiecent vehical can move further on a "turn" meaning the enemy must improve survailance over a wider area or risk security holes. You can drop fewer troops further from their targets, hit the targets earlier, and avoid "tipping your hand" by moving fewer support troops!

Re:An observation

[kfg]

However, if people did not go out and purchase these vehicles and new technologies then we would all still be driving around in Model T Fords.

The issue is not the purchase of new vehicles, the issue is the timing of the purchase and what is done with the old vehicle. As old vehicles wear out and are disposed of at the end of their natural life cycle they will, of course, be replaced by a new vehicle, preferably a "better" one than the old. The tide of technology can still move forward at a sustainable rate.

There are those, however, who advocate dispossing of (not reselling used, which is what happens to your old car when you buy a new hybrid; dispossing of) older, but still perfectly operational, vehicles and replacing them with new ones. In fact, many of them wish to mandate this.

I, for one, would not shed a tear if we got rid of 90% of all the cars, period, but I'm afraid I can only think of those people as ignorant twits. The ignorant part would be curable, if it weren't for the twit part.

I'm also likely willing to interpose my body as a living baricade between the crusher and the Bugatti T35, or even Ford Model T.

That said, perhaps we all should be driving the Model T. . .

I've driven a few, and it is still a perfectly viable automobile for the sort of driving most people do, most of the time, given a few modern improvements. The latest technology often goes far beyond what would be perfectly sufficient, but at least it often costs a lot more (there are, of course, cases where the newer technology costs a lot less).

Note that Henry F. once made a Model T prototype from locally grown soybean oil plastic, and powered it with locally produced corn alcohol. His vision was a local farm produced infrastructure, so maybe we should all be driving Model Ts.

John D. had another idea, however.

People are People and they like shiny new things.

Which is exactly why no special, government mandated, accelerated program to replace older cars is needed in the first place, and they can leave those few of us that prefer older, classic things the hell alone.

KFG

Re:An observation

[kfg]

I doubt this statement is entirely true.

I would have to ask you how you would define 'almost' before I can take up that issue. Personally I think the word is weaselly enough that I've already dealt with it. I considered and acknowledged exceptions.

An example, my 1969 GMC truck runs fine.

Of which there are comparitively few on the road, even fewer as a percentage, and ever fewer every year. Thus, while it may spit out 100 times more 'garbage' than a newer vehicle it actually contributes little to the overall problem, although it does stand out a bit, which is a problem of perception mostly.

However, if you wish to crush it and get a Prius, well, it's possible you'd be doing the enviroment a favor. I'll be happy to leave it up to you, as the 'problem' is ultimately self-correcting in the long run.

Sooner or later some twit of a soccer mom is going to crush it under her new Hummer and it will no longer be on the road polluting.

KFG

Re:An observation

[Peyna]

I know of at least one example of an assembly plant trying to lower it's resource consumption. Actually, after a quick google search, it appears there are at least four GM plants using landfill gas for energy.

Why do they do these things? Because in many cases, there actually is a cost savings in more "green" industrial methods.

Re:An observation

[SnapShot]

You are absolutly right, but I would take it a step farther and say that it applies to every aspect of our industrial society. I wish more people would realize that being green is only a by-product of being more efficient. This isn't a war between the environmentalists and the industrialists, it is a war between efficiency and waste.

At the risk of oversimplifying, what is pollution? It's a layman's term for entropy. The conversion of a good from an ordered state into an unordered state. Every drop of industrial pollution is a reduction in shareholder value: heat, energy, and resources that could have been saved are lost. Every drop of consumer pollution is reflected in higher heating bills, lighting bills, and gasoline bills. The only reason it is cheaper to pollute than it is not to pollute is that we are rarely asked to pay for the real costs of what we consume.

Re:An observation

[Craig Ringer]

I found your comments very interesting. I do think there's a point where it becomes worth replacing cars - when they become extremely inefficient and dirty. Short term air pollution also matters, from a health perspective among other things.

That said, it does bring the Japanese policy of taxing even slightly old cars into oblivion into a whole new light. How ... dodgy.

<i>After all, isn't that why many of us spend so much time maintaining existing code base?</i>

Certainly not because nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs, probably resulting in a code base 1/4 the size, 10x the speed, and twice as reliable...

Re:An observation

[Zoinks]

I have to agree with this response about enviro-friendly cars. Each part of the problem is somewhat separable: (1) manufacturing, (2) fuel consumption,and (3) eventual recycling of the discarded car.

BMW was working on that last item as long ago as 15 years ago, in that they were designing cars to be easily stripped down in the junkyard to allow differing materials to be separated (source: Roundel magazine circa 1989, long-discarded). Considering this was discussed in the context of their new 750il (12 cylinder with the name reminiscent of the 70's oil embargo), fuel efficiency was obviously not the main concern. This simply demonstrates one way that these three aspects can be addressed independently.

Re:An observation

[kfg]

Certainly not because nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs, probably resulting in a code base 1/4 the size, 10x the speed, and twice as reliable...

Shhhhhhhh! That's supposed to be a secret. I don't know that it really matters though, as the prime reason nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs is because nobody understands the business well enough to rewrite it like it needs either.

KFG

Re:An observation

[MikeHunt69]

Except the changes between a regular car and an LPG car are: LPG tank, throttle body & intake manifold. It's not like you have to redesign the entire car.

Re:An observation

[Forbman]

When I pointed out to a friend that part of the cost of replacing older, less "enviromentally friendly" cars with new cars was the pollution inherent in dispossing of the old car prematurely and manufacturing the new one (not to mention the pollution inherent in earning the money to buy the new car, and the pollution inherent in. . .) he was stunned. He'd simply never thought of that issue. All he'd ever heard about were emmisions, so that's all he ever thought about.

It's almost always more 'friendly' in the long run to use existing systems until they naturally expire than it is to replace them with new systems before that time. After all, isn't that why many of us spend so much time maintaining existing code base?


Well, a living, breathing example of a counter argument to this is Cuba. They've essentially been forced to operate as if it's 1953 (or whenever Castro took over). How do you figure? Well, everyone has managed to keep their 1953 refrigerators going. They've managed to keep their 1953 cars going. Etc etc etc.

A 1953 refrigerator uses probably about 2-3x the electricity that a more modern refrigerator uses. If you factor that over 50 years, Cuba has wasted a LOT of electricity. So they're trying to make a more efficient modern refrigerator (more modern insulation, more efficient compressers, etc), but they still need to figure out a way to not have it sell for $1100/unit, which is probably equivalent to about 1 billion pesos.

Cuba has to import all of its energy products. Without its sugah-daddy anymore, they have to do something.

Your point makes sense in the whole lifetime of lots of different incremental upgrades that is western advancement.

I could just about care less about the energy savings of Compact Fluorescent lights, for example. In my house, we seem to go through a lot of incancescent bulbs. And some of them are just in pretty inconvenient places to have to change what seems to be monthly. Putting in a CFD that will last 5-10 years is a savings in and of itself that justifies not having to drag the ladder in and out of the house.

It is not unfair to assume that if I had to do things like this at my job instead of what I'm being billed out at $60.00/hr to do (think: programmers doing lots of data entry...), if my manager didn't find some cheaper labor to do it, he's gonna get in trouble...

Re:An observation

[Forbman]

Of course, the article was wrong. The H2 is really a Chevy Tahoe that was "monster garaged" to sort of look like it was derived from the "real Hummer", the H1, which is a civilianized HMMWV, or Humvee.

As such, instead of 18 mpg like the Tahoe gets (which, for better or worse, is better than what a Ford Pinto got in the 70's...), because they added about 2000 lbs of...???... to it, it now gets 11mpg.

The upcoming "H3", which will be a "hummerized" Chevy Colorado (whatever that platform is generically called), will also have significantly reduced fuel economy compared to its "normal" brethren, but better than the H2.

Oh well.

What can you realistically do with an H2 (or H1) that you can't do better with a more normal SUV or pickup truck, except get off on thinking that you're really intimidating the hell out of all those Prius and Insight drivers with their Al Gore...er, John Kerry stickers?

Yes, I know that the H2/H1 have some decent off-road capabilities, but that doesn't fall into the "realistic" category, not to mention "practical" category.

If you need to buy an H1/H2 just so your kids impress their peers at school...

Re:An observation

[Forbman]

...or, that sometimes, there just isn't anything to be done with the waste. You can only reprocess wood pulp, for example. At some point, the fibers become too short to do anything with.

What do you do with excess arsenic, cesium, etc. that may be byproducts of various recycling streams? You bury them as toxic waste.

Re:An observation

[dajak]

It is also important to point out it is not a personnel carrier. Vehicles in this category operate in small packs, in a reconnaisance, artillery observation, or maybe anti-tank role. It can be carried by a helicopter, and operate independently for days. It protects itself with its speed, manouverability, and low observability.

It's the US answer to small vehicles like the German-Dutch Fennek.

The idea of using a hybrid DE engine for this kind of vehicles is obvious. You don't want to run a diesel engine while you are observing, and observation systems often use lots of energy.

Re:An observation

[iwadasn]

and most of that material is water, perhaps about a bathtub full, hardly worthy of note.

A more interesting comparison is something like total energy required and ore required. Assume we have two raw materials, rock and electricity. How much rock and how much electricity does it take to generate this thing. You can throw in water as a third raw material if you wish, but usually it's fairly unimportant.

Seems almost "warcraft" like, but that would be the logical way to measure things.

"This computer took 2 tons of ore, 5 MegaWatt hours of electricity, and 500 gallons of water, in the process it released X grams of CO2 (directly, not double counting the energy here....) and X grams of non-recycled industrial waste. "

Would be quite simple at that point, don't you think? Just make every product have a sticker saying as much, and then any product assembled from disparate pieces can just sum their contributions, add in anything else consumed in the assembly and testing, and sticker the result.

Re:An observation

[SnapShot]

I don't know about the arsenic, but they should be building clocks out of the cesium.

On a serious note, the fact that it is the recycling stream in the first place is an indication that the initial use was wasteful. My complaint would be more against any process that is adding more arsenic and cesium to the waste stream. Three cheers for the people that are doing the hard work trying to clean it up after them.

Re:An observation

[nbowman]

Any Hummer (Civvie or otherwise) gets left for dead by a Wrangler Rubicon off road. Unless the Mil-spec hummer cheats by using the mounted MG or TOW :P Hummers are fucking pointless for Civvies.

Re:An observation

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

By the way, the undated article was "Last-Modified: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:06:47 GMT"
At least according to it's httpd.
--

that RST is very toyota!

[snellgrove2]

Combining a standard internal-combustion-engine with an electric generator, and motors (which can also be run in reverse, when coasting / braking, thus returning the kinetic energy back into electrical power) is exactly the same idea, as Toyota have come up with in their family car, the "Prius" which is called the "Hybrid Synergy Drive"

I have driven a prius about 4 times now, and have managed to average, at "99.9 miles per gallon" as it says on the display. albeit, ive only managed that to last about 10 minutes, when doing around 40mph, on relatively flat land, but still its pretty damn good fuel economy

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have driven a prius about 4 times now, and have managed to average, at "99.9 miles per gallon" as it says on the display. albeit, ive only managed that to last about 10 minutes, when doing around 40mph, on relatively flat land, but still its pretty damn good fuel economy

That's nothing. On my display in my 1966 Ford F-250 with a 5.7l engine and 50 gal fuel tanks I've managed to hit 100 mpg on my analog vacuum gauge. Imagine a 7,500 pound truck going down hill and you'll understand.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[pchan-]

i can do better. when rolling down hill, i can push in the clutch, put the car into neutral, and shut off the engine. the car's guages don't seem to work too well when it's shut off, but by my rough calculations (since my car is accelerating down hill without using any gasoline), i am getting better than infinity miles per gallon. i tried to check if i had more gas in my tank when i reached the bottom of the hill than at the top, but unfortunately, this was not the case.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[Googo]

Yes, it is more or less the same idea though the military version is more expensive and runs on diesel instead of gas. If there was a diesel hybrid prius, the average MPG would probably rise a bit.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[Dr. Cody]

i can do better. when rolling down hill, i can push in the clutch, put the car into neutral, and shut off the engine. the car's guages don't seem to work too well when it's shut off, but by my rough calculations (since my car is accelerating down hill without using any gasoline), i am getting better than infinity miles per gallon. i tried to check if i had more gas in my tank when i reached the bottom of the hill than at the top, but unfortunately, this was not the case.

Well, considering your power brakes shut off with your engine, I'm glad you still have enough function in your hands to type a post on Slashdot.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[Peyna]

I sure hope there weren't many turns on that hill; most cars with power steering are impossible to turn without it.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[cymen]

If by impossible you mean requiring significantly more effort.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[n6mod]

We're obviously a nation of weaklings.

Assume the vehicle in question even had power brakes and steering (I have several that don't) the only thing that goes away is the power assist.

The brakes still work.

The steering still works.

In fact, the brakes don't really require that much extra effort. The steering can get pretty heavy, but that's because power steering racks tend to be closer ratio than manual. In fact, the hot autocross setup for some cars is to swap the power rack into the manual steering car.

-Z

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[Dun Malg]

If by impossible you mean requiring significantly more effort.

I think he means "impossible for a 5 year old child", and he has a point: You should never shut off the engine when your five year old is driving.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[ckaminski]

The ONLY thing that power steering offers you, for those who have never driven a car without it, is the ability to turn the wheels at a dead stop or slow speed.

Natural effort and the tendency of the wheels to camber into the curve while spinning are enough to steer a car that's moving at a decent speed.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[Resound]

And if you want to go further than that, for the first couple of applications of the brakes (or one long application) the vaccuum cannister that produces the power assistance for the brakes still has the pressure differential from when the engine was running, so brake effort in an emergency stop would have been almost indistinguishable from what it would have been had the engine still been running. Still not ideal practice, but not particularly dangerous. Chatting on the phone instead would have probably been more likely to cause a crash.

Re:that RST is very toyota!

[jackelfish]

Perhaps the governments of the world should be investing money into building more and steeper downhill roads!

Don't panic

[halftrack]

But don't worry, a green-friendly Humvee is fairly low-priority on the DoD's list of innovations.

So relax, will ya... The DoD's not going to start respecting things. And with the Hummer you don't have to either.

Looks A bit strange...

[ReeprFlame]

...but it still doesn't mean that if you can get more benefits from it [eg: more efficient power and better speeds] then you shouldn't consider the idea...

Re:Ok, fine.

[Maljin Jolt]

Lithium polymer battery contains no acid. However, I would guess what "greener" actually means in military slang: using a darker color paint...

I remember those days...

[The Desert Palooka]

Running on Butane, all lubed up with Safflower oil...

DoD Research

[Registered Coward v2]

Actually, there's a lot of hybrid vehicle development going on at DoD - even for the current batch of HMMV's,

The militray is always interetsed in lower fuel consumption (as long as it doesn't degrade mission capabilities), because that means you have to haul less gas to the battlefield, lessening the logistical footprint. Fuel costs are a very small part of the equation - more of an added benefit than a driver, at least for combat and combat support vehicles.

In addition, hybrids can be more stealthy - less thermal signature, lower noise, etc. - which maes them better for many types of missions.

Size counts as wll - anything that helps load it (or more of them) into a C-130 or C-17 is a plus, especially since the US military is moving to lighter fast reaction forces that can be airlifted quickly to combat zones, rather than running massive convoys of ships that take days to get there.

Re:DoD Research

[JohnsonWax]

because that means you have to haul less gas to the battlefield

Gas isn't always readily available where you're going either. Multi-fuel systems are also being considered where you could use any one of a number of available hydrocarbon fuels to run the vehicle.

Re:DoD Research

[myowntrueself]

"especially since the US military is moving to lighter fast reaction forces that can be airlifted quickly to combat zones"

Yeah I didn't think that the special 'high mobility' fuel tankers that have to follow gas-guzzling hummers around could be air lifted very easily...

Re:DoD Research

[Forbman]

But proving the hybrid system on a more conventional platform means that it might enable a more expanded electrical part of that picture, which leads to various kinds of electromagnetic weapons (lasers, EMP, rail guns, etc.) that can use some of the required electrical generation to help move the vehicle when it's not doing its primary task.

The navy is moving to do this with ships as well.
Instead of having two systems, you can reduce it to one big electrical generation system, with some of the power going to the propulsion system, and the rest for the AEGIS radar and all of the NT4 workstations on the computer.

Fix government waste first

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."

I don't see any evidence of a shift at the DoD. Of course, increasing gasoline prices negatively impact anyone with vehicles - but if you want to save money due to gasoline prices, there are things you can do today.

For instance, government fleet vehicles could be hybrids. "But hybrids cost more, so the savings is negligable!". That's true... at TODAY'S fuel prices. But since fleet vehicles have a 3 year life (within the fleet), and since Wall Street says that gasoline prices will rise 40-50% within the next two years, a move to hybrids will cause the real cost of operating the fleet to fall dramatically.

Or, more fleet vehicles could go with LNG. The US has a lot of natural gas, and NG's price is a bit more stable than oil's price.

Right now, whenever you fill up your car with gas, remember that half the profits go directly to the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other terror-supporting states. In fact, they make enough money with these profits to do things like build nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran admits it is. Other countries haven't admitted it (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), but there is no reason to believe they aren't (or haven't) gone down that road covertly.

And for just that reason alone, LNG, with it's low and stable pricetag, is a compelling alternative to traditional gasoline.

Fleet vehicle operations cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars a year. Shouldn't these vehicles promote US policy and strive to reduce taxpayer costs?

We're not talking about taking away your car - we're talking about making some government beaurocrat's official vehicle much cheaper to run, and keeping US dollars here (and out of the middle east).

Re:Fix government waste first

[danwiz]

"Wall Street says that gasoline prices will rise 40-50% within the next two years, a move to hybrids will cause the real cost of operating the fleet to fall dramatically."

I agree with poster about the historical prices of LNG, but I've also done a lot of coding for the financial sector. Their standard legal disclaimer is - Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results.

Re:Fix government waste first

[shaggz]

Couldn't agree more. Natural gas prices may have been kept relatively low in recent years, but it still suffers the same problems that gasoline does as a fuel with a limited supply and increasing demand. The primary environmental reason for switching to natural gas from fuels like gasoline has always been emissions as natural gas burns much cleaner.

Re:Fix government waste first

[gronnsak]

Other countries haven't admitted it (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), but there is no reason to believe they aren't (or haven't) gone down that road covertly.

I'm confident that the current rulers of Iraq have admitted to having a large arsenal of nukes.

Re:Fix government waste first

[Dun Malg]

"Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."

I don't see any evidence of a shift at the DoD.

Not to mention the fact that the hybrid vehicle in the article isn't intended to replace the HMMWV in any capacity whatsoever. It even says at the end of the military.com article that it's replacing the M151A2, which is the old jeep. The dumbass at military.com did no research whatsoever. He apparently just looked at the pictures and assumed that the Shadow Fast Attack Vehicle was some kind of Hummer replacement.

Re:Fix government waste first

[iwadasn]

Unfortunately the natural gas of north america is fast diminishing. Within a decade we'll be importing natural gas from the same guys who sell us oil today. This is hardly a long term solution.

We could however try to use bio diesel as much as possible, and use nuclear generated H2 to replace Natural Gas generated H2, and that would help on both fronts. Using heat pump style heating instead of natural gas would also be helpful, but only if we don't have power plants burning natural gas to produce electricity, as we do today.

Don't even get me started on coal though. If we're not going to go nuclear, then scratch those last two proposals, as using coal produced electricity for those would make things worse rather than better.

Re:Fix government waste first

[BiggerIsBetter]

Expect LNG to quickly rise in price. We've had a good run on LPG and CNG here in NZ, but the gig is up. With rising Petrol (Gasoline) prices, consumers have moved to Diesel and LPG (CNG has been deprecated here). The result is of course that prices of both have risen disproportionately to Petrol. Market forces and all that.

So converting to LNG is a nice idea in the short term, but I think we really need to convert our existing fleets to Hydrogen gas and BioDiesel.

Re:Fix government waste first

[Resound]

And we don't really want anyone (except the US, of course!) to have nuclear weapons. I mean, they might attack another country based on spurious, trumped up charges or something. Much better to leave these things to nations who wouldn't DREAM of performing an act of aggression.

"Other countries haven't admitted it (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), but there is no reason to believe they aren't (or haven't) gone down that road"? Other than inspection teams who desperately wanted to find nuclear arms or facilities for manufacturing them (in order to justify the invasion of a country) utterly failing to do so despite basically having totally free rein within the country. And before you start bleating about how nasty and evil Saddam Hussein was, think about all the other places where crimes against humanity far more grievous than those in Iraq under Hussein (try Cambodia and Rwanda for starters, if your imagination/knowledge of world history fails you) and ask why Iraq was so much more important than those places that a huge force was sent there while NOTHING was sent anywhere else.

Still, to move back towards the original topic, if the US doesn't sort itself out soon, then they're going to miss the boat on alternative fuel tech as far as producing and exporting it goes anyway. I believe Japan is already starting to develop and build their own hydrogen infrastructure, and you can bet that in the process they're going to develop a number of useful technologies that they may or may not want to licence to US firms. Given that the primary issue being addressed here is the cost and difficulty of maintaining a refuelling infrastructure for forces in the field, that seems awfully relevant to me. Remember too, that even with regenerative braking, those batteries need to be recharged at some point. By a generator. That runs on fuel. Which needs to be transported. Along with the generator. In a transport vehicle that also need fuel etc. etc. etc. Probably still a significant net gain overall, but nothing like as good as it first appears.

Interesting goals for the Humvee

[Myself]

The hybrid Humvee project I heard about was not so much to reduce fuel consumption, though that was a side benefit. The main goal was to generate lots of electricity without having to tow a generator trailer.

It was also done with a different engine, and didn't include so many differences from the regular chassis. The one described in this article is by far a more advanced concept, and it looks like it's almost production ready.

It's too bad the civilian Hummer is just a Suburban now. I'd like to see one of these bad boys on the dealer's lot! (I'd imagine the local Ham radio survivalist types could build a whole comm station into one.)

Re:Interesting goals for the Humvee

[bob beta]

The local Ham radio survivalist types could build a whole comm station into a package that runs on a small hand crank.

Re:Interesting goals for the Humvee

[Dun Malg]

Also did anyone else notice that the civilian version of the Humvee is the H1 - NOT the H2 (as stated in the article)?

Also of note is the fact that the Shadow IFV isn't even intended to replace the Hummer in any capacity. The moron author even says so himself:

"the Shadow RST-V is slated to replace the M151 A2 fast attack vehicle "

The M151A2 isn't the Hummer, it's the old Jeep!

The H2 is just a cheaper knockoff of the H1,but without a turbodiesel engine option, so you can't even *try* to keep fuel costs down.

Yeah, and it barely even counts as a knockoff. It's a Chevy Tahoe with a body kit that makes it resemble the H1. Doesn't even bother with the pretending it's for offroad use.

Re:Interesting goals for the Humvee

[Dun Malg]

Most of what you say is true, however, I have a friend who actually has driven one of these off-road and he tells me it can do shit he wouldn't DARE TRY in his Cherokee Grand. Sideslope at extreme angles, it climbs like a goat, these were the kind of quotes I have. And he started out prepared to ridicule the thing for exactly the same reasons you are using. Still, it's not a mil-spec vehicle.

Oh, it's certainly BUILT to go offroad, I agree. I was just thinking of the cosmetic appearance and luxury interior stuff. The H1 is obviously just an carpeted HMMWV with better seats. The H2 is clearly designed from the beginning for carting the kids to soccer practice and driving to grandma's house on the interstate, rather than drag-assing around muddy USFS fire roads or BLM jeep trails in the desert.

Speed record

[elh_inny]

Is it just me or is 315km/h not very impressive?
I live in Poland (where car drives you) and people often modify their cars to use LPG instead of petrol (actually the car can run on both fuels).
The car loses some of its horsepower, but I've been driving at almost 200km/h on LPG myself, so I see no reason to employ space technology to go 50% faster.

Re:Speed record

[rasz]

agreed, some cars perform BETTER on LPG when doing 400m sprint

Re:Speed record

[imsabbel]

Well, you realize that 300km/h needs 2.25 times the power than 200km/h, 315 even more but i dont want to pick up a calculator. Kinetic energy and wind drag go with v^2, or else it wouldnt be hard to reach high speeds at all...

Re:Speed record

[f1rb]

Drag goes up as v^2, but the power goes up as v^3, so 315km/h requires almost 4x the power of 200km/h. If they'd wanted to make a special speed-record car they could have gone a lot faster, but not around corners...

Re:Speed record

[elh_inny]

But this is world record, just look at hypersonic cars etc, I'm not implying that you actually need every LPG powered car to go 300 km/h, but if they want world's attention and having the best technology at hand they should do much better, right?

Re:Speed record

[ikejam]

yup same in where i used to be in India. lpg works out cheaper too :). and if the cylinder runs out, flip the switch. i think cheap fuel perspective is a 10x incentive over green fuel. Hell they probably dont even know its cleaner. (is it? really? :)) now if they can lauch the shuttle wiht gas.......

this one might be different..

[xot]

..but all other solar/electric/natural fuel powered vehicles crawl slower than snails.Usually never more than 80-100kmph.
For these cars to be be commercially viable for production, the speed has to be near 200 kmph.Thats more than enough for most people.I think speed is one of the reasons why these cars don't sell.

Re:this one might be different..

[toganet]

Ok, I'll admit that a top speed of 100kph (~60mph) isn't going to excite anybody, but why would do I need a vehicle that can go 200kph (125mph) to drive to K*Mart? That speed is nearly double the legal limit anywhere in the US, and would lose you your license right away.

There are existing electric vehicles with top speeds around 120kph (75mph), such as the defunct-but-returning sparrow. That's fast enough for daily driving. And if you want to drive dangerously, ride a motorcycle --high speed, real risk, better fuel economy, lower cost of entry, shorter life spans -- better for the planet!

Re:this one might be different..

[horza]

I think hydrogen counts as a natural fuel, and BMW have non-commercial versions going 300 km/h. The fact is that when you say electric vehicles crawl slower than snails you only mean top-end speed. An electric vehicle will leave its petrol equivalent dead at the lights. I think the massive increase in acceleration will be a big seller.

Phillip.

Re:this one might be different..

[dselic]

Actually, it is. In Europe lots of people convert their cars to run on natural gas, mostly because it costs way less than gasoline. Although this usually entails a small reduction in performance, the benefits as measured in lower operating costs by far outweight the disadvantages, such as lower autonomy caused by slightly higher fuel consumption and the loss of some trunk space (which is where the extra tank goes).

I'm surprised this hasn't caught on in the US, especially with the recent increase in oil prices. Cars that run on natural gas can revert to gasoline by simply flipping a switch.

Re:this one might be different..

[xot]

Yup, A lot of the cars here in India do it too.The natural gas converter kits are very popular especially with taxi drivers.The reduction in performance is negated by the cost reduction so the guys are pretty happy.
And of course its less pollution. :-)

Re:this one might be different..

[gtkuhn]

You're 100% right that "green" vehicles suck. That's what makes the race car and the DOD humvee so frickin cool! The race car does go fast. 315kph is fast! The Humvee is even more impressive to me. The electric hybrid "burst" can make it climb 60 degree inclines?!?! TFA said the diesal motor was 138HP on a 4-ton vehicle. That's some electrical burst. As the tech advances it closes the performance gap with it's more established competitors.

Re:this one might be different..

[dajak]

Hydrogen is not a natural fuel. The BMW H2R is an interesting concept car for fuel cells, but the fuel still needs to be produced and you need another fuel for that.

LPG race cars are not very interesting because people have been converting their race cars to LPG for a long time now in Europe. It is simply a new speed record. My parents owned an LPG Audi when I was a young. It has been around as a fuel since 1860.

I think the massive increase in acceleration will be a big seller.

I think increase in acceleration will be limited by law at some point. We don't see well while accelerating because our brains can't cope with things accelerating towards them. High top speeds are safer.

Electrical Loads

[Detritus]

Hybrids are also useful for vehicles with large electrical loads, which is the case for many military vehicles.

Re:I don't get it!

[rben]

Hydrogen isn't exactly a perfect fuel either. Hydrogen has to be generated, usually by splitting water, which requires electricity. That electricity is often generated by burning fossil fuels like oil or coal. (Yes, it can also be generated by other greener means, but most power production in the U.S. still involves fossil fuels. BTW, wind power is probably the best option since it actually takes energy out of the atmosphere directly.) Storage of Hydrogen safely is also problematic.

Right now, the best bet for the environment is probably the hybrid vehicle. I'm especially interested in the new Honda Accord which is coming out since I've been driving Accords all my life. These vehicles use the energy generated by burning gasoline much more sensibly. Regenerative braking and instant off/on for the engine help dramatically lower the fuel consumption without turning your car into a wimp. (Anyone driving in Boston or Chicago will appreciate the need for a little get up and go when dealing with crazy drivers.)

No matter how green the car is, you still have to get people to buy it. People are attracted to the Humvee because of it's military association. I hope the same magnetism influences them to buy hybrids based on the new design discussed in the article.

While we keep trying to ignore it, the problems with our climate are going to continue to increase. We've increased the carbon in our atmosphere by over one third in the last few decades. You can't change the global makeup of your atmosphere without expecting some pretty dramatic changes in how that atmosphere behaves. We should all be doing our part to lower the impact our daily lives have on our already stressed environment.

New Humvee looks like APC from Aliens

[Ingolfke]

The new Humvee looks similar to the APC from Aliens. Granted the picture of the new humvee is in its travel mode, but there are still some obvious similarities.

Re:New Humvee looks like APC from Aliens

[CmdrGravy]

Insofar as they both have 4 wheels, yes it is almost identical - how spooky is that ?

Otherwise though I can't see any similarity at all.

Breaking

[The Cisco Kid]

They can even recuperate energy when breaking.

Apparently military.com's editors are all on 'brake'.

Re:Breaking

[Jeremi]

No no, the article has it right -- the motors can actually recover power from mechanical failures. This will give soldiers an electricity source to play their GameBoys with while waiting for the repair crew to arrive.

Naming Issues

[CmdrGravy]

I think the military ought to take a good hard look at it's naming strategy.

"The Super Sea Stallion" helicopter for example, whoever named that has issues.

Re:Naming Issues

[Mr. Foogle]

What issues?

The first helo in that line was the H-34 "Sea Horse". Then along came the CH-53 "Sea Stallion" - and the upgraded version of the CH-53 is the "Super Sea Stallion". It all sorta makes sense. Horse, Stallion, Super Stallion.

Re:Naming Issues

[CmdrGravy]

I agree it makes sense when you see where it has come from I just can't help thinking it also makes perfect sense to your average 9year old thinking of a name for his new super duper weapon with which he will smite the armies of his friends and rival gangs.

Also I wonder where they might go from here:

Super Wicked Space Robostallion
Super Fire Breathing Sea Kraken Of Law
Mad Water Monster What Can Fly
Ultimate Storm Stallion

Re:Naming Issues

[CargoCultCoder]

I just can't help thinking it also makes perfect sense to your average 9year old thinking of a name for his new super duper weapon

Says a lot for how far we've gone in the last 50-60 years (not sure what direction), when kids were supposibly less inured to violence, despite the military using names like Avenger, Hellcat, Helldiver, Devastator, Marauder, etc.

I really doubt that the moral-boosting -- if not always appropriate -- weapon names are to blame for corrupting the minds of our children. I much more strongly suspect it's how those weapons are used (or portrayed as being used).

Re:Naming Issues

[bbc]

"whoever named that has issues"

I think that was already evidenced by them joining the military.

Re:Naming Issues

[Mr. Foogle]

not to mention names like 'Brewster Buffalo', 'Fairey Swordfish', 'Mitchell', 'Gooney Bird' and so on. Fearsome names the Greatest Generation used, fearsome.

Re: Humvee

[ozbird]

Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors.

The desert version is tanner than its predecessors.

coupe or hatch?

[ForestGrump]

so its a 2 door coupe with a hatch? or a 3 door HB?

I can hardly wait...

[Chuqmystr]

Swell. We'll soon be inundated by those things here in Southern California. Yup, all in custom colors with 29" aluminum stylized wheels (because 29" is bigger and better than 22"), complete with multi-monitor audio/video spoiled brat back seat package, one spoiled brat in the back seat to make it all carpool lane legal and one ditzy pilot behind the wheel with the cellphone pasted to their fucking ear (ever hear of a handsfree kit or a headset?). (s)He'll be running into/over whatever gets in the way too whenever the freeway speed gets above 3.2 MPH. Oh, and that diesel-electric hybrid powertrain? GONE! Replaced with twin 250hp/1200ft/lbs torque Cummings Tubodiesel power plants at a stately 2 MPG. Other than all that it is a pretty damned cool truck ;-)

Re:I can hardly wait...

[n6mod]

We'll soon be inundated by those things here in Southern California.

Nope, but you'll be surrounded by Suburbans-in-drag that *look* just like them.

This is better: no normal drive train

[r00t]

This uses 4 electric motors in the wheels.
That means it doesn't need a sloppy differential
to let the wheels on the outside of a turn go
faster than the wheels on the inside of a turn.

The Prius, while nice, lacks this ability.
A Prius has a direct linkage from the engine to
the wheels; electric power is only an assist.

Re:This is better: no normal drive train

[Ba3r]

not to mention the benefits of all wheel drive, independant traction control, and sheer torque from having four wheel based motors. The only real drawback is the maximum speed.. which is limited to the max rpms of the motor. However, nobody except racers needs to have a car that goes 150 mph.. in fact for all intents and purposes a car that can burn up a quarter mile, but maxes out at 100 is probably the perfect solution for general society.

I am just waiting for the day that i get my four wheel-motored pickup with 400+ hp.. and 35mpg.

spare electrical power too

[r00t]

The big generator can power a beam weapon.
The military already has at least two:

1. terahertz crowd suppression beam
2. solid-state (synthetic ruby) laser

Probably they have a secret rail gun too.

Re:spare electrical power too

[Hawthorne01]

It's not that big of a secret.

How about biodiesel power?

[MtViewGuy]

Here's a easily-achived way to get an environmentally-friendly race car: use a turbodieel engine fuelled by biodiesel fuel.

Essentially, use the engine from the Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI and put the smallest chassis and body around that engine. Modify it to ensure complete compatibility with biodiesel fuel and the result is a race car that could probably go way over 300 km/h (186 mph) and still get far superior fuel efficiency to its gasoline-fuelled competition. :-)

Re:How about biodiesel power?

[haruchai]

No kidding. What idiot thought an LNG powered car was environmentallhy friendly - and SAFE!?

why they are wimpy

[r00t]

The target market for electric vehicles expects,
and often even wants, whimpy vehicles. You don't
want your fleet vehicles to be used for racing.

If you're a hard-core environmentalist, you're
expected to be dirt-poor from spending all your
money (not much -- you were an art major) on the
organically grown bean sprouts you need to survive.

Diesel-electric can go plenty fast though, and the
acceleration can be awesome. This just requires
a change of target market. Engineering has no
trouble with this.

Where do they get journos nowadays?

[panurge]

Quote: Shadow uses a series of magnets for propulsion, driven by the main diesel motor. An 110kW Magnet Motor drives four 50kW Magnet Motors mounted on the each of the Shadow's four hub

This is so technologically illiterate I almost despair, though I think it means

Shadow uses electric motors for propulsion, driven by a generator attached to the main Diesel engine. There is a 110KW generator and 50KW motors mounted on the hubs (the difference between 200KW and 110KW can be supplied by the Li Ion batteries to provide full power for short periods.)

Of course, it could be deliberate technical obfuscation to throw Osama off the track . And bears are Catholics and the Pope poos in the woods.

Re:Where do they get journos nowadays?

[NoYes19]

I read it as no axel, instead EM motors are turning the wheels at the wheels.

Magnet spins in the 110kW electric motor generating current, a long with the diesel engine, current goes to the motors in the wheels, spins the magnet in the 50kW motors, which physically spin the wheels.

It's mostly the wheel hubs

[No Such Agency]

The wheels look *very* similar. Also the low, compact, angular chassis with no protrusions - the "Aliens" APC was a design which would actually make sense for air transport to a combat zone (which of course was its role in the movie).

Mechanical motivation

[Migraineman]

The "new Hummer" is driven by wheel-mounted motors, and that provides some extra capabilities you won't find in a conventional mechanical drivetrain. Most noticably, the track (left-to-right spacing between wheels) can be adjusted. That's a huge capability when you have to pack these things into aircraft or ships.

This vehicle isn't going to completely replace the Humvee, but it will perform certain tasks (like fast recon) much better. The 138hp engine indicates it's not being built as a "do everything" vehicle like the Humvee's supposed to be.

Re:Mechanical motivation

[temojen]

The 138Hp engine powers the generator almost all the time, probably mostly at peak efficiency. The 4 50KW (67HP) electric motors drive the wheels when needed, with the amount of power needed (up to 268HP when accelerating, a handfull of HP when cruising, down to -268HP when braking). Given that it's got an all-aluminum frame and body, it could be a do (almost) anything vehicle.

You probably don't need a long range, silent, fast, low radar & thermal signature vehicle for towing artillery anyways as artillery needs to be near the supply lines.

Re:Mechanical motivation

[dabigpaybackski]

...Most noticably, the track (left-to-right spacing between wheels) can be adjusted. That's a huge capability when you have to pack these things into aircraft or ships.

That feature, much like a "kneeling" suspension on a tank, adds weight and complexity to the design that troops in combat (who do much of the vehicle's maintaince) won't want to deal with. My bet is that it will be found too troublesome and removed for the final design, after a protracted and lucrative "R&D" period.

Re:Mechanical motivation

[Migraineman]

I disagree. There are certainly motovations for altering the vehicle's track. If I can squeeze my vehicle through a gap where the op-for vehicle can't, I've gained a tactical advantage. Example: The Humvee has a high-ground-clearance powertrain that requires a ring/pinion structure on each wheel hub. That's extra weight and complexity, and should have already been removed (by your arguement) in exchange for something that's easier to maintain. The military is willing to pay for tactical advantage in the form of both dollars and effort.

Also, this new vehicle doesn't have a conventional hard driveline, so the interaction between the suspension and powertrain is going to be fundamentally different from a more conventional structure. Comparing to the complexities of a shaft-driven tank suspension isn't going to give you useful information.

On a similar note, I was watching the Discovery Channel the other night, and they had a show on about demolition equipment. One wrecker was based on a Cat tracked chassis that could *gasp* alter it's track width. So there's commercial value in such a concept (in spite of the increased complexity and maintenance cost.) Like I said, I disagree with you.

Is it me....

[druiid]

Or does this look a lot like the troop transport vehicle from Aliens? I guess if we ever get invaded we know what to run them over with.

Re:Is it me....

[tekrat]

I was thinking the same thing -- that it looks like a military vehicle as designed by Syd Mead.

I think it's the oversized tires with the armor plating on the sides that gives us the visual cues that make us think of the troop carrier from Aliens...

Personally, I can't wait until GM offers us the "civillan" version of the Aliens APC, but styled as a mini-van.

RTFA, submitter!

[Doc Ruby]

FTA: "The Shadow RST-V's reduced fuel consumption wasn't created to make it better for environment, it was designed make it the stealthy and efficient multi-purpose attack vehicle of the future."

gkbarr either didn't read the article they posted, or their military fetish blocked the truth from penetrating the brain layer that controls the posting hand. If the military even uses this tech, rather than just spend billions of our dollars on corporate welfare and PR about "khaki green", they'll use it twice as much on double the efficiency. And all that "space age" tech consumes more energy in manufacturing, and spews more pollution under Pentagon exemptions. Then they send it out to destroy environments with a hail of artillery and other lethal poison. How "green" are the uranium shells littering the Iraqi landscape? While "there are none so green as the dead" (Bruce Sterling), a million American military personnel taking the subway or biking to work, rather than manning strafing runs and firefights, would be actually better for the environment.

Re:RTFA, submitter!

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
50% Flamebait
50% Insightful


In the same spirit, the "Flamebait" spewing mod either didn't RTFA, or their own military fetish gets in the way of reading military criticism. Armies kill people and destroy places: that's bad for the environment. We'd better get used to it.

You are half right

[Charcharodon]

Actually fuel costs are right up there at the top along with water and food, but not in the cost of buying then, but in hauling them. Those three items make up something in the neighboorhood of 75% of the logistical loadout and get even more expensive when you have to airlift them in instead of by slow boat.

One of the other articles, either here or someplace else I read, about three other programs the first already undergoing field testing now is the recycling of water, not at the camp level but at the soldier level (ewwww he drank pee) in the field using new filter packs. A group of marines used them to stretch their water supply by a week (80% pee recovery) after being cut of in our current conflict.

The second which is still under developement is the collection of water from vehicle exhaust effectively cutting the bulk of the logistics need in half. Basically all your vehicles would have these units on them to condense and filter the water. Which would supply your troops directly in the field. Again making your troops more agile tactically since you can go farther and longer into the field without having to bring the extra water tankers.

The last is a new tent rain guard, the roof above the roof for those of you who are not familiar with the standard military tent, which is covered with 700watts of flexiable solar cells. Supposeably near industructable. (We'll see after they let some junior enlisted play with them.) During the day all the tents would provide for the needs of the tent city and some of the base cutting down the need for desiel for the generators as well as the number of generators that need to be brought in the first place.

So now they just need to get rid of bullets so we can be more environmentally friendly and of course murder our fell man cleaner, more effectively, and more humanly.

"Set phasers to disco"

Re:You are half right

[Registered Coward v2]

Actually fuel costs are right up there at the top along with water and food, but not in the cost of buying then, but in hauling them. Those three items make up something in the neighboorhood of 75% of the logistical loadout and get even more expensive when you have to airlift them in instead of by slow boat.

Yup = which is what I meant by reducing the logistical footprint; which is most of teh transport capability anyway, especially once the force is on the ground.

So now they just need to get rid of bullets so we can be more environmentally friendly and of course murder our fell man cleaner, more effectively, and more humanly.

Well, they're working on an electron gun, so they may even have that covered...

Glaring Errors

[Dun Malg]

TFA is ill researched crap. First, this Shadow hybid vehicle is not suitable as a 1:1 replacement for the HMMWV except in a very small number of roles; it's a light attack vehicle with no cargo capacity. The hummer is 1 1/4 ton truck. Then there's this choice bit of irrelevancy:

A typical Humvee guzzles over 1,000 pounds of fuel per mission, and the civilian equivalent (the Hummer H2) was ranked among the "12 Most Environmentally Unfriendly Vehicles of 2004."

The Hummer H2 is not the civilian equivalent of the HMMWV, the H1 is. The H2 is a totally unrelated vehicle based on the Chevy Tahoe SUV. The military is obviously interested in reducing fuel consumption, as driving tankers of diesel around is a logistical nightmare, but really that's about the end of it. And at the end there's this glaring error:

the Shadow RST-V is slated to replace the M151 A2 fast attack vehicle currently used by the Marine Corps for Special Forces (SF)support. After test and evaluation and rigorous trials, the RST-Vs superior mobility, deployability and fuel economy are welcome advantages over the Humvee's loud, gas guzzling ways.

OK, so the Shadow isn't replacing the "gas guzzling" Hummer, it's replacing the M151A2! The M151 is the good old fashioned jeep, with a tiny 4 cylinder gasoline engine. Hardly a gas guzzler. The author clearly wanted to put a "green" spin on the story, but didn't bother to research a number of his assumptions, the stupidest of which was assuming the M151A2 was the Hummer!

Re:Glaring Errors

[Fiveeight]

Possibly the Hummer was tested against the Shadow as a potential replacement for the jeep? That would partly explain the phrasing, although it's a horrible bit of writing.

Re:Glaring Errors

[BoneFlower]

Or the fact that you just don't see jeeps in the military anymore, they were replaced mostly by hummers, a few replaced by civilian light trucks, and a few by John Deer Gators.

I spent five years in the Marine Corps, and a year in the Army National Guard, and the only jeeps I saw were old rusting hulks, often cut up for scrap metal, shoved off in a corner of the motor pool parking lot.

So I'd write it off as shoddy research as well, but not for the reason the grandparent did. You can't replace the jeep because the damn thing already has been replaced.

Re:Glaring Errors

[Dun Malg]

Possibly the Hummer was tested against the Shadow as a potential replacement for the jeep?

No, the Hummer has been in service for 20-odd years and has always been a big, bulky vehicle. Nobody in the Marine Corps would ever seriously suggest replacing small, light jeeps with the Hummer for the Fast Attack Vehicle role because it cannot be transported inside a CH-53 or CH-46 helicopter or the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, which is a requirement for the FAV. They've been soliciting designs to replace the M151 jeep for years. Currently they are adopting the LKW Wolf by Daimler/Chrysler as an Interim Fast Attack Vehicle until they settle on a new design.

Re:Glaring Errors

[Dun Malg]

Or the fact that you just don't see jeeps in the military anymore, they were replaced mostly by hummers, a few replaced by civilian light trucks, and a few by John Deer Gators. I spent five years in the Marine Corps, and a year in the Army National Guard, and the only jeeps I saw were old rusting hulks, often cut up for scrap metal, shoved off in a corner of the motor pool parking lot. So I'd write it off as shoddy research as well, but not for the reason the grandparent did. You can't replace the jeep because the damn thing already has been replaced.

Yeah, I think a had the M151 listed on my US Army driver's license back in '88, but even then it was a joke because my unit had perhaps three of them rotting behind the motor pool garage, and no one ever drove them. As I understand it, the Marine Corps still had a few M151A2's in service up until '97, but by '99 they were pretty much completely replaced with the MB290 Wolf based IFAV. Technically, the Shadow is designed to replace the M151A2, as the IFAV is just an "interim" design and the "official" Fast Attack Vehicle is still the M151A2.

Regardless, the presumption by the author of TFA that the HMMWV ever had anything to do with the Marine's Fast Attack Vehicle is still sheer idiocy. The bonehead clearly did no research beyond looking at the picture of the Shadow and concluding that it was meant to be some sort of "new Hummer". Personally, I'd expect better than that from military.com.

Re:Glaring Errors

[SoupIsGood Food]

The old fashioned Jeep hasn't seen service since 'Nam, and you know it. Furthermore, the old Go-Devil four banger was hardly fuel efficient... check the EPA stats on the civvie 4cyl Jeep. Better than a humvee or a gamma-goat, but that ain't saying much.

The HUMMWV has been used as a FAV by the Army and Marines for more than 20 years now, and it's configuration reflects this. It's also being used as an armored scout car these days. It may offend the sensibilities of those who insists there's a proper tool for every job, but there you go. Unfortunately, the HUMMWV was the wrong platform to go with, as anyone who's actually bought one for civillian use has found out. It only seats four, and doesn''t cram too much cargo, it's too wide for a good recreational off-road vehicle or city driving. This means it's useless if you've got to drive it through the woods or on patrol through an urban theater.

This is why the humvee is loathed by the Marines because it's too big and inefficient for what it's asked to do, but the DOJ forced it on them. They'd rather use the Galendawagen. I don't think the Shadow, which looks even bulkier with less crew and cargo carrying capability, is going to make them happy. It looks just like an armored scoutcar, without the serious armor. What's up with those wheels?

Making millitary vehicles more efficient is just good logistical sense. Maybe they'll find a more worthy vehicle platform to put this hybrid tech in.

SoupIsGood Food

Re:Glaring Errors

[Dun Malg]

The old fashioned Jeep hasn't seen service since 'Nam, and you know it.

The M151A2 was used by the Marine Corps as late as 1997 in Albania. The US Army replaced most of their M151's with the M998 HMMWV in the early 80's, so the old Jeeps were around quite a while after VietNam.

The HUMMWV has been used as a FAV by the Army and Marines for more than 20 years now, and it's configuration reflects this.

The HMMWV is unsuitable for the specific role the M151A2 filled. Note the requirements for the ITV/LSV/RST-V program: it needs to be internally transportable in the CH-46 CH-53 and V-22, a requiremtn the HMMWV cannot meet.

This is why the humvee is loathed by the Marines because it's too big and inefficient for what it's asked to do, but the DOJ forced it on them.

Yeah, the DOD forced them into the one-size-fits all nonsense without regard for the Marine Coprs' specific needs. That's why they didn't get a replacement for the M151A2 until 2000-- the Interim Fast Attack Vehicle (IFAV).

They'd rather use the Galendawagen.

Yes, the Mercedes-Benz Geländewagen, the IFAV. I think they should stick with that and shitcan that stupid hybrid FutureMobile.

Specifications

[drinkypoo]

Someone should probably let you in on a little secret: Motors and generators are generally the same thing, the name depends on how they are used. I'm sure you already know this but all of the motors would better be termed "motor-generator" units, because I'm sure they're doing regenerative braking, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the main generator is also used as a starter motor for the diesel, which would make sense as it would cut down on the number of components. If I had piles of money I'd like to try retrofitting an ordinary automobile with one of those pancake-style motor-generators on the crank pulley, using it to replace the alternator AND the starter motor.

Incidentally, the peak output of the batteries is 80kW or 107HP. Assuming 80% efficiency at the motors this is enough to produce about 81HP. Assuming the 110kW generator actually puts out 110kW that's about 150HP, or about 120HP at 80%. Thus the vehicle should only have enough electric power to deliver about 200HP, less than the 268HP that four 50kW motors can produce at peak. This, of course, is only if the gasoline motor is doing nothing to power the vehicle. When it is, it puts out 138HP peak, so either way, the vehicle has about 200HP to work with tops. At 8,000 pounds, the only thing that will prevent this vehicle from being a complete pig is that electric motors make peak torque at 0 RPM, so I suspect that during acceleration the diesel motor will be doing more to run the generator to drive the vehicle than it will be driving the vehicle mechanically.

Re:Specifications

[ckaminski]

I think the only problem with your design is possibly that the belt couldn't generate enough fricton on the crank to turn the engine over. This would be less of a problem with modern engines with serpentine belts, but a belt still wears faster than a steel cog.

Otherwise, it'd be a fun exercise.

Re:Specifications

[drinkypoo]

I'm not talking about a belt, it would either be directly coupled, or gear-driven. Then all the stuff that's normally on a belt could be electrically operated and wouldn't even have to be located on the motor, like the A/C compressor, and of course the power steering.

I've driven that fast myself

[CrystalFalcon]

You're right, 315 km/h is not very fast. I've driven that fast myself on highways around here.

All for a cost significantly less than a normal midsize car, and three times the adrenaline.

I drove a Suzuki Hayabusa. Fantastic machine. Insurance costs forced me to sell it, though. Attracted all kinds of reckless drivers, young guys who needed to prove something. :-/

(OTOH, everything is relative. Yes, going 300+ km/h with your eyes about 3 feet from the ground does cramp your stomach a bit. There's a threshold around 230-240 km/h where tunnel vision kicks in for real; above that, you're running on adrenaline.)

HMMV replacement

[Andy Dodd]

It wasn't replaced for environmental friendliness reasons.

It was replaced because a more fuel-efficient vehicle makes supply chain logistics significantly easier.

Hybrid Hummer

[sootman]

I was at an electric vehicle trade show in late 1997 and saw a hybrid Hummer. (Diesel engine working as a generator for electric motors, IIRC.) It was actually faster 0-60 than a stock Diesel hummer and it had a great feature: you could put it into "stealth mode" (yes, really) and run almost completely silently. Stealth mode temporarily turned off all hydraulics, etc. Worked great, too. The guy was talking about the vehicle to a group of attendees/reporters, then instructed them to turn around. Unnoticed by anyone, the Hummer had silently pulled up and parked behind them.

Re:I don't get it!

[anakin876]

sadly I can't find the link, but I have read that in an area of northern germany where they have large windfarms they have also seen a dramatic change in the moisture level of the air. Apparently, by using up some of the kinetic enegry of the wind they are making it more difficult for the rain and moisture from the ocen to get there. Sadly, I can no longer find a reference to this, and so I can not use it to any great effect. My point in bringing it up is that while wind power does seem to be one of the best "green" power sources, it may not be as environmentally friendly as we think. Until we can get some good data and larger tests we won't know for sure though.

Not just being green, sound logistics strategy

[sam0ht]

Every gallon of diesel a Hummer burns has to be delivered to the front lines somehow. These supply columns need to be protected, diverting resources from the actual fighting. Many advances have been strangled by overstretched supply-lines. So if you can make Humvees use half the juice, you can increase the effective 'reach' of your units, given the same logistical back-up.

Moreover, if it's twice as efficient it's putting out half the heat, making it harder for the enemy to see / fire heat-seeking missiles at.

So yes, efficiency does matter to the armed forces.

The fuel of the future

[MikeHunt69]

I don't think LPG is the alternative fuel of the future. The biggest reason is that LPG is made as a byproduct of either the extraction or refining process of gasoline (can't remember which right now).
Taxis in Australia have been using LPG for over 10 years - that's pretty much 100% of taxis in every major city. I also have friends who run LPG. You can only tune the engine for one fuel, so you lose power with either petrol or LPG. Also, every car starts on petrol - even if running on LPG, so you still can't have an empty tank. Also, you use around twice as much LPG as regular fuel - ie. if you get 50 km/L, you will get 25km/L on LPG, so unless it's less than half the price of petrol (per litre), it's not worth coverting.

Re:The fuel of the future

[dajak]

In the Netherlands 300,000 (out of maybe some 5,000,000) cars use LPG. It is cheaper because it is a by-product of refining oil that is otherwise torched, and environmentally friendly 'G3' systems are taxed considerably less. Break-even point for converting to a G3 system is just 4000 km per year.

Modern multipoint injection systems (DGI, SGI/commonrail) are almost indistinguishable in performance to comparable petrol installations, and the fuel economy, and therefore range, is improving.

Main problem is the density of LPG infrastructure abroad. The range of LPG cars is lower, and LPG cars are a serious disadvantage if you go abroad in countries with few LPG stations. I imagine in Australia that would be less of a problem because the car never leaves the country.

Is there anything scifi hasn't predicted?

[strider3700]

Looking at some of the pictures I'm heavily reminded of the troop carrier used in Aliens.

Last night I saw something on the troops of the future on tv and the helmet with integrated camera and flip down screen could have been a prop out of that movie.

Now to find a motion tracker.

Re:Is there anything scifi hasn't predicted?

[ckaminski]

Now, now to find machine guns with standard 25mm explosive tipped caseless ammunition. :-D

<http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm>HK G11 baby</a>

North-eastern BC...

[temojen]

Up in north-eastern BC many of the light trucks and cars are run on LNG or LPG alone. It has the distinct advantages that it's a byproduct of the oil industry (and therefore cheap in the oil field), and doesn't stop working below -40C.

It's not about the oil being all gone...

[Scareduck]

... it's about the cheap oil being all gone.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised /. hasn't had any discussion on the subject of Peak Oil. Geologists following the models of King Hubbert have projected that oil production will peak within about two years, never to increase again. With India and China becoming big oil consumers, we don't have a choice anymore but to think about the energy cost of everything we do. When oil company executives start telling you we're running out of oil, soon, and forever, why isn't anyone listening?

Green Industry and Globalization

[Shihar]

I can only speak for American companies so other parts of the world are probably different, but I can say that over the past 10 years, American companies have started to become more fanatical about being 'green', at least with companies that deal with chemicals. 30 years ago in your average American corporate engineering lab they used all manner of horrible chemicals and it generally was not a big deal. They built things using terrible side products.

Over the past few years though, I have noticed a pretty dramatic change. All of the companies I have ended up working for (3) have been fanatically dedicated to 'greening up' and have put major amounts of money into changing processes over so that they use more green materials. In fact, a good way to get your project killed is to request the use of something hazardous when it isn't absolutely necessary.

The major reason this change, from my understanding as an engineer and not a policy marker in a company, is that companies are becoming more and more global. The Internet revolution made global companies much more viable and much more efficient. Even small companies are becoming very global. I worked at a company that had 500 people under it, but was located in something like 20 nations. The Internet and advances in IT has really made this sort of set up not only possible, but very effective. The net result is that whenever a company needs to make a product, they need to meet standards of every nations that they intend to sell it in. So, whoever has the lowest standards really IS the standard.

For instance, I was working with a company that was making power supplies. They used to make the batteries out of lead and some other ugly chemicals. They spent a massive pile of money trying to work the lead and other harmful chemicals out of it to meet an EU law. Another company that I worked for that did capacitor work did something similar when they put a pile of R&D money into meeting a Japanese law. I even was working in a project to meet a Chinese standard once - not that China is the most environmentally friendly nation in the world, but they do have some tough laws that they hold foreign businesses to but not their own domestic industries.

Whatever the case, people boo-hoo globalization for environmental reasons, but I can say that in the chemical industry in the US, globalization can take more credit then anything for the greening of the industry.

Re:I don't get it!

[iwadasn]

dude, we don't get significant electricity from oil. The next time someone talks about "save elecricity and we won't have to buy so much oil..." i'm going to puke. We make elecricity from three primary sources, in order of magnitude (always wanted to say that).

1) Coal.
2) Nuclear.
3) Natural Gas.

These three combined are essentially all our electricity (90+%).

As for generating hydrogen, cars are about the least useful thing Hydrogen can do. It turns out LOTS of industrial processes (like producing gasoline from crude oil) depend heavily on H2 gas. Something like (don't have exact numbers) 1/3 of our natural gas consumption goes to produce hydrogen (by stripping the carbon from CH4) that is then used to refine crude oil, produce margarine, or make Ammonia for fertilizers. If we could efficiently generate hydrogen without using natural gas, that would be a substantial step in the right direction. Obviously hybrids are basically the other half of this.

Given lots of cheap H2, we can thermally depolymerize pretty much anything (sewage, trash, agricultural waste, etc...) into diesel oil, and that would pretty much eliminate our need for fossil oil.

The other main side of it is electricity. Coal power plants produce something like half of the country's CO2 emissions. A cheap source of hydrogen would pretty much eliminate the other half (the car side), and a good source of electricity would eliminiate the Coal half.

I would propose nuclear for both fronts, reactors can produce both hydrogen and electricity, but that's just me. If you want to pay 30x as much for wind power, be my guest. You'll only have to build and maintain a billion (literally, a billion) windmills. That's about one windmill ever 100 meters in every direction throughout the US, hardly a trivial task, but if you want to pay for 1,000,000,000 windmills then who am I to say otherwise. I'd rather take the ~2,000 reactors it would take, but once again, that's just me.

Environmently vehicle

[owlstead]

almost made entirely out of aluminium. Aluminium manufacturing plants are normally found next to electric power stations. Furthermore, wasn't there something about aluminium being toxic after being hit? Not that it matters too much, if your car is hit by a DU bullet...

Yes, but...

[isecore]

"Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."

Yes, but it sure does look a lot less manly in my opinion.

Overrun by Greens

[Infonaut]

are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens?

Well, you know the Army does pride itself on being the lean, green fighting machine. D'oh! Please, don't throw rotten eggs. I just cleaned this suit.

In Australia, you say?

[dabigpaybackski]

Your taxis may be efficient, but the drivers are hulking brutes who wear metal hockey masks and bellow threats from loudspeakers at pedestrians. Kinda scares off the tourists.

fuel consumption

[Wenalex]

I read somewhere that nearly 50% of the army's budget is consumed by fuel costs, though i don't remember where i got this number or know how accurate it is for that matter, this may be baseless. But, it might highlight what the army has in mind when they are attempting to increase fuel efficency. Rather then being environmentally friendly, it might be a tactical decision, a few of the united state's potential enemies control large amounts of oil, this is an extreme disadvantage for the US if they need this oil to operate its millitary. Thus, any reduction in fuel consumption its a strategic imperitive. Also, fuel is expensive, if you aren't spending as much money on fuel you can buy more guns and bombs to kill people. These two things are probably more what the army has in mind as they attempt to decrease their consumption of fuels.

soy beans and low yield nukes...

[torrents]

the dod's job isn't to make the world a cleaner place and protect from pollutants... environmental friendlyness is just a byproduct of their machine, it's highly unlikely that it was a prerequisite...

Re:soy beans and low yield nukes...

[sexylicious]

Not true. One of the precepts of the military is logistics supply. In other words, most soldiers would rather have a vehicle that fits their needs and gets 30 mpg, than a vehicle that fits their needs and gets 10 mpg. That's the whole drive for such research. Oil dependence doesn't have anything to do with it. You look all the way back to the first military units and there have always been three things that military leadership tries to maximize: defense ability, offense capability, and speed/maneuverability. If you can take your M1 Abrams tank and extend its range by 200 miles, you've got a more effective fighting ability.

Re:Logisitics tail

[type40]

I think you put it a little bluntly, but I think your mostly right on this.
Last week my boyfriend and I were talking to the brother of one of my coworkers. He was home on leave from the Marines. He was on a tank crew in Iraq. He was telling us how pimp his lifted 4 wheel drive Chevy looked with 38 inch tires on the rear and 35 inch tires on the frount.
My BF is a 4x4 nut. He can site the specs for most transfer cases GM has made in the last 30 years.
I'm a car guy (i don't have a kitchen I have an engine assmebly area)
We know that you want the wheels your putting the power to to turn at about the same rate.

My BF and I could not get him to under stand that running his basically stock drive train in 4WD was a bad idea because running the frount wheels faster than the back wheels would cause one of his differentials to fail (differentials are in most cases not a cheap part). A best case failure would mean just loosing 4WD, a worst case failure could lead to a fire (very unlikely, but still possible).
After about ten minutes of trying to convince him to buy uniform sized tires or use 4WD only when absolutely nessary, he says, "You guys are gay. What do you know about trucks." and drives off.

All I could say after he left was, "Our military has certified him in the use of fire arms."

I'm not tring to paint the military as a bunch of brain dead thugs but there are a few that do great disservice to the uniform

fergive me

[syynnapse]

test.

lubricated?

[triso]

... lubricated with sunflower oil.

Hmmmm. I guess that would be okay and if you have an oil leak at least you could stop and cook up some french fries.