Slashdot Mirror
Modded Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 MPG
artemis67 writes "Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage. It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel. Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car."
This is a very cool mod, but with the turnaround time in the auto industry and the legal costs that acquiring the rights to use the guy's idea would entail, it may be decades before you see this in new hybrids...
-nick
VW is selling 84 MPG vehicles since '99 http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/marev iew/mauto497.htm
The problem is not really making a high MPG car, it is that people, especially in the US, don't want to buy them. Not even the best technology can make an energy efficient car handle like a porsche or sound like a truck.
I suspect - but have no proof - that the plug in option reduces some of the pollution per mile. The reason why I suspect this is that you have reduced the engine size and carry less of your fuel (part of which is at the power plant) Additionally the power plant should be able to run cleaner per Watt produced - they should have better polution reduction equipment.
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
I do believe that the generators down at the power plant are in general more efficient than the engine in your car (though it's tricky to make an apples to apples comparison, as few power plants run on gasoline (though some probably do run on diesel)) but I suspect it's not a LOT more efficient.
Also, you were talking about `pollution per unit of energy' not efficiency, though in practice I suspect the two are just different ways of looking at the same thing -- after all, power plants will burn a given fuel in the same way that a car engine will, so the waste products will be the same. The power plant may be somewhat better maintained, however, and can have more things similar to a catalytic converters on a car.
And even if the power plant pollutes just as much as a car engine for a given amount of energy, there's another advantage -- the polution is generally produced away from the city, which helps keep the polution around the people who actually use the cars down.
That's certainly true. Alas, not much of the US's power comes from things like this.Unfortunately, assuming 36 kWh per gallon of gasoline, and $.12 per kWh of electricity, the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas in electricity costs $4.32. This doesn't take into account relative efficiencies, but electricity is definitely not free.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
You arn't missing anything. I think its a big problem with the car industry and other fanatics in general (and abstractly a problem with marketing really), instead of touting real benefits of a given product they just tout some numbers that make it sound like its the best thing sinced sliced butter or XOR. The current problem with these hybrids is that they are mostly more expensive than pure gas vehicles, and the costs can't be recouped unless you put in some insane driving time on them. Theres also been a lot of talk about how dangerous the batteries are and how costly it will be to get rid of them once they can't hold a charge anymore. From reading TFA it seems like all this guy did was rig in a bunch of extra batteries to gain some extra mileage, which doesn't really do anything worth a damn, since those batteries still have to be charged. I would be more impressed personally if they had come up with something that allows you to charge the batteries while the vehicles in use (such as the brake-chargers that the Honda hybrids used), or some other technology that makes the batteries more bio-safe/longer lasting. I'm moreso looking forward to seeing progress made in Biodiesal before hybrids/pure electrical, since they attack the problem in (what I feel) is a better manner.
http://www.e-traction.com/TheWheel.htm
Put the motor in the hub. No drive train! AWD!
All I need is some big bucks to get a welding torch and put 4 in some old jalopy. (And some batteries..)
Anyone know what these things go for? They can use a lot of juice and put out a lot of power.
Cheers!
-b
The inevitable smart-ass question of "Oh, but that electricity has to come from somewhere!!".
Consider this:
Energy content of gasoline: ~45 MJ/kg
Density of gasoline: 737 kg/m3
1 cubic meter = 264.172051 gallons, equals 2.79 MJ/gallon.
Now 1 kWh is exactly 3.6 MJ. Electricity costs (let's exaggerate) 30 cents per kWh.
What do you pay for gas?
Now add to that the facts that:
1) It is easier to clean up a handfull of power-plants than a millions cars distributed over the whole country.
2) Electricity doesn't have to come from fossil fuel sources
3) Even if it does, power plants still produce energy more efficiently than an automobile engine.
What about the batteries? Aren't most batteries toxic as hell? Isn't the manufacture and disposal of batteries a colossal headache? Am I really doing anything productive at all, trading a few gallons of Saudi crude for a lithium/ion toxic waste site? Somebody, please, set me straight. What do they do with the batteries?
Oh, and what if you live in a place with real winters? Last I heard, batteries die a quick and silent death in subzero conditions.
"Even if it does, power plants still produce energy more efficiently than an automobile engine."
Everything except natural gas (which is running out and expensive) is stuck below about 35% efficient. Coal power plants a bit more efficient than an engine, but once you factor in transmission losses and storage losses it doesn't really look that good. That, and coal is a very dirty source of power (eg it releases lots of particulates some of them radioactive). The only viable large scale alternative is nuclear, and it's not exactly cheap.
Also, the transmission infrastructure can't take a significant number of people doing this.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Assuming I had one of these cars, where would I plug it in? I park my car in a parking lot, not a private garage attached to a single-family house.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Yup, like parent said it, mpg is always a tradeoff between comfort/utility and efficiency. The hard part is providing luxury while having efficiency. There is a fine balance, and the Toyota Corolla with a 40mpg, or the hybrids, strike that balance a lot better than either a 10mpg super luxury SUV or a 1986 Geo Metro. Not to say the Geo Metro isn't quite a luxury from a buggy horse, or even the Ford T-model. I think you should be proud to own such a 1986 vehicle, but still know that you could get that 1986 vehicle to either get more mpg at same comfort level, or more comfort at same mpg, these days.
A solar panel car can give you quite a lot of mpg because it uses no liquid fuel, but try flooring it and see if you win a dragrace with it. You also don't get much of a legroom in a solar car.
Let's force the US to allow the importing of the smartcar.
Smartcars do well in Europe since most cars are very small (Citroens, Fiat Pandas, and the like) and there are fewer of them. Not many cars will be much bigger than yours, save for the occasional Mercedes or tractor-trailer.
The US is far different. Even in times of record high gas prices, SUVs are still selling since many people have the idea that size=safety. Just like the cold war arms race, no one wants a wimpy car that doesn't stand a chance against an encounter with an Escalade.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
...it's not worth it. You can get a non hybrid Civic for $14k that gets 32/38 milage. The hybrid Civic runs $6k more but gets 10mpg more. How many years does it take you to break even on the gas costs?
The nice thing about a hybrid is that its range isn't limited by the amount of energy its batteries can store. So you can use the batteries for your daily commute and short trips, while still using gas for your occasional long drives. That's probably a better solution than having to buy both an electric for daily use and a traditional car for long trips.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
SUVs are still selling since many people have the idea that size=safety
I'm tired of hearing this. While that might be part of it, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to own an SUV.
My family has 7 people in it. To travel semi-comfortably on vacation, we pretty much have to use a Suburban. A minivan, while it does have room for 7, doesn't have room for luggage. We're not anywhere near alone in this.
My family also enjoys camping and using a shared family boat. Both of these require a vehicle that can tow a lot of weight. There's not many options for a even a family of 5 to travel and tow something this size besides a large SUV. We're not anywhere near alone in this.
It's not something we really like. After all, ~15 MPG with a 45 gallon gas tank and $2.50 per gallon add up to some pretty big numbers for a trip. Because of this we also have a smaller vehicle for everyday use. This isn't to say that SUVs are always used for a good reason. I'm sure there's plenty of people who just like the big cars, same as they like big houses. But SUVs also have many valid purposes.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
and all of the generated energy is clean.
It isn't clean; generating electricity from sunlight means using either crystaline silicon or gallium arsenide. Both involve massive amounts of toxic chemicals in both manufacture and disposal. Just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling because they aren't polluting while you own them doesn't make them 'clean'.
As I posted a ways up "The same idiots argue that having batteries in your trunk automatically were made by some "dirty" power source is causing just as much harm. Im guessing the ratio of cars to power plants in the US is around 1:7500000"
Lets do some statistics - Their are a total of 2,776 power plants in the United States - Lets compare that with the estimated 1.9 million cars in the United States
The ratios between the different types of power plants goes as follows : Coal accounts for 43% of the energy in the US , Gas is 19% , Nuclear 14%, Renewable enery 12%, Petroleum 7%, Hydroelectric 3%
So anyways back on topic your saying that 63% of the US's power supply is made from dirty sources ( coal - gas and petrol ) is equivalent to 1.9 million cars, thats 1748 ( dirty ) power plants.
People that saying buying a fucking hybrid is a crime because they ASSUME that the energy created comes from dirty power sources ( might be the case in your area, might not ) are complete dumbasses.
My business partner has a couple of pure-electric RAV4s. He has a special hookup with the LA DWP to charge his cars during non-peak hours, for around 5 cents per kWh. Anybody driving an electric car every day would do the same thing.
So, using your numbers (except for your high electricity price) the electric car gets four times the miles/dollar as the gas car. Of course, the electric RAV4 only gets 100 of those miles per charge. Based on a month's driving and his electricity bill, we calculated that the electric RAV4 cost about 1 cent/mile in electricity.
Of course, the car was very expensive, and the batteries will probably need to be replaced after (say) 80,000 miles at a cost of (say) $10,000, so that drives the cost/mile up considerably -- but battery technology is getting better, pretty fast.
But right now, at least, the cost of energy for getting vehicles down the road is significantly cheaper using electricity vs gasoline. It's probably an historical oddity that won't last -- as many forms of energy are fungible.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I would ride mine all year, except for that winter thing. I need something warmer for the October to May period.
But perhaps the best solution is getting your local government to support mixed use zoning. New Urbanism is a great start, but not if these end up as islands in a sea of suburbia -- you'd just end up driving to get to them, sort of like a Universal Studio's City Walk. Relaxation of zoning and land-use laws in suburban areas would help even more. The ability to open a cafe on the corner of your subdivision -- or even in your own house -- would be a great way to create more local services that obviate the need for driving.
The market will take care of you.
As it continues to become more expensive to commute, people like you will either go broke commuting, or find a way to make a living locally.
I'd rather see farmland in places like Ohio & Upstate NY be used as farmland, instead of being yet another place for asshats sick of citylife to throw up yet another cookie-cutter 4 bed/2.5 ba colonial on 1.2 acres.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Please don't compare RVs with cars. It would be absolutely impossible to make an RV get 30MPG like a one ton Saturn. RVs have to haul a huge ammout of weight, fight very strong headwinds, and still be able to get up to highway speeds.
That's all subjective. A great many people don't have the option of NOT driving, so even if the price ballons, they will keep on paying for it.
In Europe, gas prices are much higher than in the US, much higher than $4/gal already, and that hasn't stopped everyone from driving.
Maybe if gas prices continue to rise, you'll see a large number of people buying all-electric GEMs, attaching wheels twice as large (perimeter), and driving them to/from work. That should give them a max speed of 50 MPH. It's unfortunate they weren't built better, or they might be much more popular.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I hate that minivans get a free pass. Most of the time their MPGs are as bad as SUVs
2005 Dodge Caravan SWB SXT
3.3L V6 180HP 19/26 mpg
2005 Dodge Durango SLT 4X2
3.7L V6 210HP 16/21 mpg
For example.
I dunno, for the closest comparable engines, that looks mighty similar.
For an SUV with similar fuel economy to a minivan, you're not going to get 7 seats. You're also probably not going to get as much usable cargo room (you might not even in the 7 passenger SUV), you're probably going to pay more, and you probably won't get crashworthiness as good.
Minivans get a free pass because they do everything that most SUV buyers are buying their SUVs for, or CLAIMING they're buying them for, they do some of them BETTER, they often do it CHEAPER, and with better fuel economy.
The next time you are on the freeway, or city street for that matter, take a look around at all the SUV's. Almost every one of them has exactly one person in the vehicle, the driver. All these excuses and stories are just that, excuses and stories. Something very odd is going on and I think it is nasty that we will see gasoline go to $4 per gallon before this odd behavior begins to change.
On the other hand as long as those people pay for their indulgence I have no inclination to interfere. But when they insist on carrying on telephone conversations in these death dealing behemoths because they can't stand the idea of the boredom involved in actually paying attention to driving, I wish phone calls by a driver would be illegal if the driver does not pull over.
How about doing what I do when I need to (very) occasionally move large amounts of stuff:
Rent a more suitable vehicle.
Seriously. If it gets to the point that an all electric vehicle will save you a couple thousand* a year, and will cover 98% of your driving needs, it's probably worth it. 98% translates out to you needing a different vehicle 7 days of the year.
Rental car companies don't like making their rates public, but Alamo currently offers a compact car for $164 for a week, Minivan $239, SUV $249. Sure, there's some hassle with getting a rental, but many deliver, and if it became common, I'm sure they'd offer 'swap services' where they keep your car in their lot(and even charge it!) for the duration of your rental of one of their gasoline vehicles for your trip.
If you know that you're going to need two vehicles, I'd seriously consider how often you'll need the 'larger vehicle' before you pay that multi-thousand dollar increase. Don't forget that you'll be paying more in insurance and fuel.
*numbers in current dollars. Inflation may skew results in the future.
I don't read AC A human right
"But I'll agree with the statement Size=safety. I think I could withstand most basic impacts with my vic."
C ooperVsFordF150
The most survivable accident is the one you don't get into.
It's a whole lot easier to avoid an accident in a small car.
Also, the size of your car doesn't make much difference if you say, hit a tree or a light post. That's a situation where you'd be better off in a Mini than a truck. (You also would be less likely to roll.)
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINI
Can't say much bad about your car, in particular, though. Might not be as nimble as a Miata, but it's low to the ground, isn't going to override other people, isn't going to roll...it's just BIG.
It doesn't just piss you off, it really really pisses me off...and I live in Texas.
I wish I could just purchase a car without all of that extra safety shit and roll the dice on whether or not I survive. In return, I get a car with a huge discount. But noooooooo, the Big Government wont give me that option. So I must pay the "safety tax"
Life is not for the lazy.
There's more to it than that. Anyone remember Thorstein Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption? The basic idea, for those who haven't, is that when unnecessary overconsumption is socially sanctioned -- that is, when it becomes fashionable -- then the normal laws of supply and demands are, if not suspended altogether, then greatly modified.
There is no consumer pressure to make fuel-efficient cars because the very inefficiency and extravagance of the modern SUV is what is really being purchased by design. People want wasteful, expensive vehicles because they are fashion statements. They say, "Look at me! I have assloads of discretionary income." An Armani suit is manifestly inferior to jeans and a denim work shirt in purely practical terms, but no one buys Armani because it's practical. A twenty-dollar digital watch is a functionally better watch than a fancy Rolex, but people aren't buying Rolexes because of their chronographic accuracy.
If you want to reduce the waste of resources, you have two options: make efficiency hipper than waste, or require efficiency through regulation. To wait for simple market forces to correct the situation is to wait in vain: viewed through a purely economic lens, the market is working correctly. It is delivering what people want, which is waste.
Energy-efficiency is primarily a social problem, and only secondarily a technological or economic problem. Oh sure, in the long term, energy-efficiency is a survival problem for the human race, but humans are not very good at long-term decision-making.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
1. I didn't get my license until I was 23, and then it was because my evil Evil EVIL ex-wife demanded that I learn how to drive. So I bludgered about in her POS Mercury Bobcat and got my license. The Bobcat (mercifully) self-destructed a few years later. So: first: DON'T DRIVE unless you have some psycho harpy bitch chewing you a new final voluntary sphincter (cuz it feels good, at first... nemmind...)
2. I didn't own a car of my own until I was 27. A 1972 Chevy Nova. Got horrible mileage, but no one fucked with me over a parking space. It was olive green and nicknamed the Urban Assault Vehicle. After I put it into a guard rail doing about 95 dodging a fucking DEER in Pennsylvania (long story) I sold the parts for what I paid for the car - $425.
3. I moved across the country after that and didn't own another car of my own for almost 5 years. When I did get one, it was an old Honda Civic wagon I bought for $800. I sold it a few years later to my sister for $700.
4. In 1999 I bought my present vehicle, a 1991 Toyota Corolla. It gets about 27 mpg on the highway and about 19 in the city. It's old and dying and there is NO way it's going to pass Smog next month, so the State will take it off my hands for $1000.
After that, I won't own a car, and I hope to never have to own another. If I DO buy another car, it will likely be an old used Geo Metro or an old Rabbit Diesel so I can run it on vegetable oil.
If you REALLY want to do the Earth a BIG FAT FAVOUR DON'T buy a car. And if you do, buy a gas sipping used car. Why?
1. The energy that went into making the car (which is about equal to the amount of energy the damn thing will consume) has already been spent.
2. Buying a new car means that at your behest and convenience a lot of energy was spent making this energy sucking device.
3. NOT using a car at all, or renting them when you need them, means that you have organised your life in such a way that they are no longer of use to you. And THAT is a good thing - I am convinced that Suburbia will prove to be the single most wasteful expense of resources the human species has ever endured.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. So LIVE THE FUTURE NOW. Get rid of your car. Move to a small (or even not so small) city that has decent public transport and RIDE A FUCKING BICYCLE. It rains where you live? Well, DRESS FOR IT or TAKE A TRAIN. In the town where you live, agitate for light rail, trolleys and suchlike.
Make it happen. Hybrids are NOT a solution - they are just a less (and not very less) heinous face on a cancerous blight. The solution is energy curtailment and population reduction. I say, "Live it, or live with it.
It's a bit like having bees live inside your head, but it's a really good BUZZ.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
That's a neat trick. Whenever you hear someone mention a problem - you define the "real problem" as their complaint. It both gives you a specific person to target as the problem causer, and makes the solution really simple: get them to shut up.
Unfortunately, sometimes when people complain they have good reason. When that happens, your system fails.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Ah, the Hummers. I have an idea for those people: They should be drafted and sent to Iraq. Why should somebody else risk their lives for their gasoline?
Or, if that's too much exercise, how about an electric scooter? Top speed 30mph, range of maybe 30 miles, costs you 15 cents to recharge from flat.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The difference between the UK and the US on this is that although there may be times that it would be useful to have a big vehicle for hauling things around, it would be a complete and utter pain in the arse the rest of the time.
The UK has a population density of 250 people per square kilometre compared to 32 in the US, and most of our city centres are many hundereds of years old, which basically means that our streets are quite a bit thinner than yours and there's more cars on 'em. Many people in cities (including
myself) don't have off-street parking so it's a case of trying to find a space on the street fairly close to your house.
That coupled with a road tax related to engine size and petrol (sorry, gas) costing close to $6/gallon means that people just don't buy the behemoths that you see on US roads. The closest it tends to get are large 4x4s like these ones that would be dwarfed by your American SUVs.
I've got a Toyota Corolla Verso, which has up to seven seats to fit my family of six, and yet is only 14 feet long and has a 1.8 litre engine. If need to haul stuff, I can put all the seats down which creates quite a large space in the back. If I need to haul something really big, I'll just hire a van. Sure, it'd be nice not to have to do that, but have something big for everyday driving? In London? Forget about it!
So, would you like to explain to me why moving seven people requires a vehicle with it's fucking bumper at the same height as my head when I'm in my car? When I was a kid, we got seven people in a station wagon. I'm sure you could put seven in a more reasonable SUV than the tank you've got now. Don't use the fact that you can't figure out contraception as a sorry excuse to endanger the families of other people (who don't have as many children to spare as you).
You pretty much HAVE to have a suberban? Jesus christ, what a load of self-serving bullshit. Unless the seven people you're hauling around are Marines and you're in a combat zone, you don't need a fucking Suburban. If your kids can't deal with anything else, you're raising a bunch of pansy-assed prima donnas with an over-active sense of entitlement.
I'd appreciate it if you would justify to me why you're wearing out the roads faster, the ones I pay for with my tax dollars. Until there are higher registration fees for heavier vehicles, SUV drivers are getting subsidized by the rest of us.
And that doesn't even touch the global warming issue.
SUV's occupy a public space. Surely you can't be such a complete, selfish ass as to consider the public roads and our atmosphere to be "your business."
Is there a reason your family needs to be so large? How about something more earth friendly like, 4? You know, replace yourself and then stop? 4 fit very nicely in any eco-box auto - been there and done that and it works.
Every human added to the world uses resources - your family is a case in point. You have 7 in the group so your house must be bigger and you need a monster SUV to take everyone for trips. Fewer folks = less demand on the environment = good.
Do you REALLY need to haul around a boat to have fun? Boats are uber-gas hogs so now you're driving a monster truck and hauling a gas guzzling , pollution (air and noise) spewing recreational vehicle out into the wilderness where peace and quiet should be what we seek. How about a couple of canoes/kayaks and a couple of tents - might that work? Might you not have some fun doing that also and teach your kids it's possible to have fun without making quite such a big footprint?
Sorry, big car is 'valid' for your case just isn't working out for me.
Having said that, it is certainly your right to have as large a family as you want, buy whatever toys you need, and live your life by your definitions. Eventually, resources will dry up and we'll be forced to make hard decisions where hard isn't what to pay for gas.
Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth. Your right to do as you please ends, for one thing, where you start hurting others.
Reminds me of the old Texas saying (I realize Bush doesn't adhere to this so piss off): Leave me the hell alone and I'll leave you the hell alone.
Good. Great. I'm all for it. Now could you please move to another planet (or show me one I can relocate to, preferably one that has all the amenities of our little blue ball of dirt, like breathabe atmosphere, ecosystem, close to 1g of gravity, magnetic field to help keep the solar wind out, preferable somewhere close by that the move doesn't take half a millenium).
What, you can't ? Geee.
Sitting here in Europe as I am, cars like the Ford Crown Victoria baffle me. I've been in the back of one a few times since they're often used as taxis, and my impression was "hang on, this car's three-quarters of a mile long and I've got no legroom". It's like the Tardis in reverse. And the luggage capacity wasn't all that great either, due to some spectacularly bad design of the trunk/boot/whatever, with all sorts of things encroaching on the space. I don't really understand why anyone would buy one of these giant, unwieldy slugs when something as small as a Honda Civic is spacious enough that my sister, who's 5'6", was able to get up and walk into the passenger seat from the back row.
And of course, size=safety is a total fallacy. Size=weight=bigger bang when you hit something. And in a car like the Crown Victoria, which seems to have been completely unaffected by the last 30 years or so of progress in car design, I wouldn't be too confident that it'll crumple in a passenger-friendly way if I stuck it in a wall. Most fairly small cars are incredibly safe these days - check out the Euro-NCAP tests to see how our silly little European econoboxes cope with being flung at walls and stuff, and all whilst getting hybrid-style fuel ecnonomy out of their diesel engines.
Not having a go at you personally, you understand, I just don't see the point of these cramped, inefficient, slow, thirsty behemoths in this day and age.
You're right, it isn't anyone else's business. All the same, I think it's up to you to be considerate of other people in your neighborhood, your country, and your (our) world.
Drive what ever you want, but take a moment to think about how it will affect more than just you. We wouldn't need so many laws and regulations if individuals gave the larger group a thought every once in a while.
Sig!
Actually, most of the problems you talk about here are a result of your lifestyle choices. It is possible to camp without a lot of gear, boats can be rented or stored on location, and public modes of transportation are available that can accomodate even larger families.
It may not be as nice or as easy as having all your own gear or just traveling with your group - but that is also a lifestyle choice.
They're still here. The problem is that unlike you, they may be real libertarians. That means they believe both aspects of libertarianism: freedom and personal responsibility.
These libertarian have a problem with SUVs because the SUV drivers are not held responsible for the extra damage they do to the roads, the extra pollution they put into the air and the additional safety hazard the pose to other drivers. In some states, their burden of responsibility is actually reduced because the SUVs are so heavy they qualify as commercial trucks.
I wouldn't have a single problem with SUV drivers if they would take responsibility for their actions.
and neither you have to justify that your a perfect rolemodel for the reason why the US is making almost double the pollution and waste on this planet as everybody else...besides not signing kyoto i might add.
but hey...its your own business right. just invade another of those terroristic countries with loads of oil if it gets to expensive/rare.
Try one of the new large displacement scooters if you want power and efficiency. 0-60 is usually around 4.5-5.5 seconds, top speeds a little over 100 mph, and mpg of around 50-60. I've been riding one for a few years now, and yes, the underseat storage is fine for a week's worth of groceries and more if you also add a top box or cargo rack to the tail. A decent rain suit will keep you dry in bad weather as well, so that's no excuse. I've also gone cross country on it from coast to coast. It's also unbelievably cheaper to insure than a car.
That seems like a decent option if you live somewhere that has a moderate climate. However, I still don't like the zero protection if hit by another vehicle factor too much. I just don't trust other people on the road enough to have my primary mode of transportation not have me surrounded by steel. I know quite a few people killed on cycles by the "other guy", either backing out without looking or blowing stop signs etc. Too dangerous for it to be an option for me. I prefer having the added protection that just can't be provided from a cycle.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
2-stroke or 4-stroke, lawnmowers (and leaf blower and etc) have no pollution controls at all. Per dollar spent, you'd get about 1000 times as much result going after lawn care eqipment as cars.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
then lead by example and get rid of your vehicle. Purchase items only produced locally.
Your polluting the air I breathe as well. After all why do people need computers at home that suck up electricity and such?
One persons selfish ideals are anothers excesses.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
,i>"Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth"
Until you get completely off the electricty grid, never go anywhere in a car, and stop using consumer goods of any kind, take your smart assed high and might eco bullshit and stuff it. You, my arrogant and self righteous friend, are just as guilty as the rest of us.
YOU are polluting as well. Not as much maybe, but then again maybe you do in ways that are not as visible as an SUV.
If you have a car you are polluting as well. If you use electricity (obvious that your computer does at least) you are polluting the air and screwing the climate. If you use mass transit you are consuming resources that lead to pollution. If you buy food from a grocery store the packaging and transportation of that food causes pollution too. If you have anything made out of plastic, paper, or metal that you did not craft by your own hand in the back yard, then you are contributing to pollution and climate change.
Screaming down someone who wants to drive a SUV while you and the rest of the world continue to pollute is just plain moronic. You are creating a scapegoat to attack that makes you feel better about yourself, but that has little impact on anything else, least of all pollution.
Get used to it folks. If you like this consumer based society we have built with the cars and computers and electric lights and rapid transit and grocery stores and pharmacies all the rest of the shit we are all used to then you are going to be a polluting, environment destroying climate changer, just like the SUV driver.
Since I don't see people falling off of the electric grid in droves and shunning this modern lifestyle you had better buy some shorts and a few Hawiian shirts. It's gonna get alot hotter around here.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
That's a good question, and I have a couple of points to address it. First of all, they use these things in on industrial size trucks and equipment, so they must have addressed that issue already. Secondly, we're talking about torque. Currently, most cars already have a limited slip differential. You know the saying, "moving power from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip." This would be the same thing, and the "dead" motor would simply coast. Certainly, they would not make the wires in question easily broken. Currently, there is a ton of wiring in cars that don't fail easily. Hydrolics have been replaced in aircraft since the late 70s with the F-16, and the success there has been folowed in other aircraft. Another point is that the power brakes on your car, all cars, use a fairly fragile hose that one leak will make useless. One nick in the hose, and no brakes in the whole system; hence the emergency break, which is a steel cable backup for the hydrolics. My last point is that the electric cars like the EV-1 by GM, I think, have used this exact design. The big three have already addressed this issue. Having all 4 wheels have the motor would prevent the failure of one to cause a catastrophy. Even then, the loss of the electric load that one dead motor would represent would be noticible by the system, and then a smart designer could design the system to react to it.
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me