Slashdot Mirror
Low Emission Cars Continue to Gain Popularity
Rio writes "A company may soon offer American motorists a new option to save on high gas prices -- vehicles powered by lithium batteries. From the article: 'Just plug in these cars for about five hours or so and you'll get about 300 miles on a single charge.' The vehicles cost about $35,000 or about double what buyers would pay for a gas-powered model." Relatedly acidrain writes to tell us The BBC is reporting that a prototype of the new "Clever car" (Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport) is starting to make the rounds on European test tracks. The car is one meter wide and less polluting than normal vehicles. It has a top speed of 100 km/h (60mph) and uses a novel tilting chassis to make it safe and maneuverable.
The BMW C-1 looks way more comfortable than the reclining Clever car. It didn't require a helmet (in Germany, France, and Spain) but they only made 2000 then discontinued it due to poor sales. Despite the fact that this article is just a PR piece, I can't see it helping sales much.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
This soooo reminds me of the Sinclair C5 "urban" low emissions car.
http://www.sinclairc5.com.nyud.net:8080/
I'd be terrified of being smushed by a truck while driving one.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
How much will the power cost me?
What is this going to do to the power grid which has been known to collapse, famously with the northeast blackout and the rolling blackouts in California?
How about the transmission line waste? What if I let my car sit for a week or two?
Aren't these the batteries that tend to explode if you look at them funny?
Just what does battery production do to the environment? How about leaks and recycling?
Am I the only one that sees that this car is entirely unpractical?
Sorry, for that ridiculous price I'll take the expensive gas. This car will be long gone from the market by the time it would even begin to come down in price.
C'mon, people. Invent a solution that people would actually buy.
They may have their niche, who knows. Considering kits to convert PHEVs can be added now such that the price for the whole prius + PHEV is about what those cars go for, they'll have to keep their shoulders to the wheel to stay competitive. The PHEV kits are only going to get cheaper, so they better keep as good track of the latest battery tech as EnergyCS and the other PHEV folks do.
Someone had to do it.
60mph isn't a bad speed for an electric car, but what kind of horse power would it have? Like, would I be able to pull a small trailer or even carry a heavy load in the car?
Also, while I appreciate the clever name, isn't this more than an Low Emission Car? Isn't it entirely electric?
People keep saying all this "what about the waste when the batteries are disposed of" stuff. Are they on to something? Are there any battery experts here who can tell me if that's a valid concern?
Is it just me, or does it look more like a souped up go-kart than a car...
Judging from the photos, doesn't look like this thing has ANY trunk/passenger/leg/head space. Other than that, it looks great and I can't wait to buy one[/sarcasm]
E = m * c^(Hammer)
It's nice to have the smaller cars, but the immediate reality is you're going to have to match feature-for-feature (outside of the high-emission, low-efficiency parts) in performance and otherwise without ending up in the Lexus or BMW range, and doing so without the driver noticing. That includes similar size and performance without having to take any notice as to driving a low-emission car, with the down-the-road option of converting existing cars over to low emissions parts that do the same but retain the body and performance of the previous engine/drivetrain as close as possible (again, without the price being beyond a conventional swap of such kind).
Not all of us care to drive something that would result in a guaranteed pre-packaged closed casket burial in the event of the Absolutely Unavoidable Collision- especially if such vehicle performs in a manner that would predispose it to being a 5'x8'x5' object with relative ease in ordinary operation.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Not unlike Star Trak era Lithium Crystals, I suspect that
crim's will go after such vehicles for their energy banks.
More value also pushes up the cost of insurance for them.
How do fuel-cell technologies work in this app'n domain?
What do Toyota Priams run on, Lithium Cells or Fuel Cells?
Would you buy a car that would only last you 150 days before very costly repairs? QED
Who's laughin now bitches !? **puts clown nose back on & gets in the car**
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
>It has a top speed of 100 km/h (60mph) I want to save money on gas, but not at the expense of doubling the time it takes to drive home.
Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport
Is that part of the name or an instruction for fellow drivers on what to do to a low-emissions vehicle?
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the toyota PRIUS uses NiMH (Nickle Metal Hydride) batteries.
how much pollution is created by the creation of the power used to charge this thing?
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
It's nice to have the smaller cars, but the immediate reality is you're going to have to match feature-for-feature (outside of the high-emission, low-efficiency parts) in performance and otherwise without ending up in the Lexus or BMW range, and doing so without the driver noticing. That includes similar size and performance without having to take any notice as to driving a low-emission car, with the down-the-road option of converting existing cars over to low emissions parts that do the same but retain the body and performance of the previous engine/drivetrain as close as possible (again, without the price being beyond a conventional swap of such kind). Quite doable, nothing contradictory about it. Not all of us care to drive something that would result in a guaranteed pre-packaged closed casket burial in the event of the Absolutely Unavoidable Collision- especially if such vehicle performs in a manner that would predispose it to being a 5'x8'x5' object with relative ease in ordinary operation. Efficiency is ok, but to run across one of these is asking "I dropped $35,000 for this?". That's what the parent poster is meaning, nothing more
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Grrrr... "relatedly" is not a word, and it should never be one. Dict.org doesn't have an entry, and the built-in Mac OS X dictionary doesn't have an entry. Arggh! I hate made-up words.
</language nazi>
Submission says: "It has a top speed of 100 km/h (60mph)" Article says: "The cars can travel up to 100 mph, according to the report." ?
Not unlike Star Trak era Lithium Crystals, I suspect that
Don't you know that this is slashdot? Geeks hang out here.
It's Dilithium, bitch!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's nice to have the smaller cars, but the immediate reality is you're going to have to match feature-for-feature (outside of the high-emission, low-efficiency parts) in performance and otherwise without ending up in the Lexus or BMW range, and doing so without the driver noticing. That includes similar size and performance without having to take any notice as to driving a low-emission car, with the down-the-road option of converting existing cars over to low emissions parts that do the same but retain the body and performance of the previous engine/drivetrain as close as possible (again, without the price being beyond a conventional swap of such kind).
Quite doable, nothing contradictory about it. Where are these options? Not all of us care to drive something that would result in a guaranteed pre-packaged closed casket burial in the event of the Absolutely Unavoidable Collision- especially if such vehicle performs in a manner that would predispose it to being a 5'x8'x5' object with relative ease in ordinary operation.
Efficiency is ok, but to run across one of these Clever cars is asking "I dropped $35,000 for this?". That's what the parent poster is meaning, nothing more.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Toyota's using Nickel Metal Hydride with an eye toward eventually using fuel cells.
If the Li-ion batteries last as long as the Prius batteries (>200,000 miles in severe real world service) there won't be much of a black market.
If there's a significant black market, then the chop shop operators will end up either educated or dead. A battery pack suitable for running a normal-sized car can deliver more current at higher voltage than the service entrance to your house. We're not talking jolts here, we're talking "your arm would have third degree burns if you still had one".
Given that most of our energy on the power grid still comes from not-so-clean sources such as coal, how is powering your car from an electric grid supposed to reduce emmissions? Sure there's no direct pollution from the car itself but the energy has to come from *somewhere*. If it's all coming from a "dirty" electric grid, isn't the electric car solution merely pushing the polution burden into communities with power generation facilities? I'm no electrician but it seems the loss of energy from power plant > grid > battery > motor would outweigh any potenial benefits. Why not focus on cleaner, more efficient gasoline and diesel powered hybrid autos? If i'm missing something here, please enlighten me...
This would be perfectly fabulous if there were federal regulations on vehicle sizes permitted in urban or other zones, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare for lawmakers to get a gradual migration to this going at any level that would prove effective. It's not really a phased migration thing. You can't put such a small car on roads with normal compact and larger cars. It's a safety nightmare. You can't really build a whole additional set of roads for these things other since municipalities like mine are already looking at $700 million dollar annual deficits.
Time to visit Europe!
It really needs noting exactly how poorly researched the BBC News article on that car is.
. You really would expect that a BBC Journalist reporting on automobiles would have some knowledge of them. Or, at the very least, have watched Top Gear for a couple of years.
Drivetrain asside, the vehicle is effectively a clone the dutch-designed Carver http://www.carver-europe.com/.
So, why am I accusing that BBC journalist of being lazy? Well, the Carver has appeared on the BBC excellent flagship car show Top Gear http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/prog19/carver.shtml>
To do my part in saving the Earth, I will replace my current vehicle with an electric or hybrid car, because they grow naturally from sunflower fields. I know they grow in sunflower fields because if they didn't, the energy saved by the increase in MPG wouldn't be enough to compensate for the energy used to create these heavy industrial products. If so, I would feel bad, and I don't want to feel bad, and I want to feel good when I buy things.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
I saw one of those clever cars at the Tokyo Motor Show last Autumn. It was set up on a stage and would swivel in a demonstration of its turning process. Dunno how "clever" the thing is, but watching it go through the tilting process was pretty disorienting. I'd hate to be travelling at speed and have one make a lane change in front of me, seemingly falling apart. Also, they're larger than you'd think from those photos -- the length of a subcompact car....
You get yourself a backup diesel generator.
When are people going to start looking at the bigger picture here? There are some obvious, and some not-so-obvious, disadvantages with electrical cars:
/Eirik
- If even a small percentage of people would start driving electrical cars, our power plants and grids wouldn't be able to handle it. It's as if every household in China suddenly should get a washing machine or microwave oven.
- Electrical energy used to move heavy objects is INCREDIBLY inefficient. First you need to produce electricity from some other sort of energysource - be it fossil fuels and gas, nuclear power (the only feasible option), coal, wind (blah), whatever. Then you need to transport it - potentially thousands of kilometres - through a very leaky distribution grid. Maybe 70% of the CONVERTED energy reaches your neighbourhood. Then you need to convert it down to 110 or 220 volts, or whatever you use there. Which loses you another bit (to wasted heat, mostly). Then you get to plug your car in, where the voltage is not only converted once again (to 12 or 24 or 48 volts or whatever), but it's also converted from AC to DC, which is, potentially, also very wasteful. That's when you can start filling up your accumulators. Then you either transform that directly to moving force by DC electrical engines (after going through a slew of regulators and stuff, though that is no worse than what goes on in a fuel engine), or you convert it to AC again to drive AC engines. DC engines are less efficient than AC engines, but converting to AC wastes power too. Maybe they even use 3-phase engines - even more efficient, but even more waste because you need to go via DC at some point. I don't know the exact figures, but I think there's about a one-digit percent of the energy that reaches your wheels.
- Battery production is expensive in terms of energy and dangerous materials.
- Battery disposal happens soon and frequently, further increasing the environmental load.
- Batteries become less efficient very quickly. 3-4 months to and from work, at most, before they start degrading noticeably.
Personally I'm more in favor of triple-hybrid cars: They run on fuel or gas (fuel has a well-developed distribution network, gas is getting there), but instead of driving the wheels directly they produce AC power to run highly efficient electrical engines. Plus, large capacitors are able to store breaking energy for quick re-use. This allows the diesel/fuel/gas engine to run at its most efficient at all times, and wastes somewhat less energy when breaking. And it requires no changes to our current distribution networks, it simply lessens the load. You could easily slice fuel usage in half if everyone drove hybrid cars.
It's not always a point aiming at zero, simply aim low enough for the problem to become manageable.
Love over Gold.
I don't think these special vehicles like TFA car will achieve any real commercial success. Most people want a safe, comfortable and practical car. And you most certainly don't want anybody to laugh at you while riding it...
No, I believe the future (until fuel cells are available) lays in hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, even though they're still not completely environmental friendly - fuel consumption is not better than most diesel powered cars. But battery powered only cars have their problems as well, darn expensive, well you have to plan your trips carefully, batteries have a limited life span and probably more important batteries are not environmental friendly.
Here is an interesting hybrid from Saab, running on 100% ethanol and batteries. It's a good looking convertible, and runs 0-100 km/h in just 6.9 seconds, not very bad from a fossil fuel-free car. Only problem is that 1) you can't buy the car yet 2) you can't buy 100% ethanol (and producing large amounts of ethanol is also a problem).
http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/04/frames.htm
Its engine is the Honda 2.0 litre Vtec engine. Fast _and_ economical (It's a 4 banger, after all). If I was to blow an equivalent wad of cash on an impractical car like that mentioned in TFA that has half its value in the silly _battery pack_, I'd much rather spend it on something _fun_ and impractical.
--
BMO
Give me an Ariel Atom with a propane tank feeding a VW TDI motor.
It would still be virtually zero emission, and go like hell.
You have to give up lifetime for range or vice versa with current technology. Deep discharges are damaging but if you stick to shallow discharges you don't go as far.
I get different estimates running the arithmetic differently. If the range on "a charge" is 300 miles, then 100 cycles is 30,000 miles. There's some Toshiba vaporware which is supposedly good for a thousand cycles. That would mean 300,000 miles, during which you'd be exempt from replacing the head gasket, the alternator, the starter, the catalytic converter, the electronic ignition, the fuel injectors, the valves, and all the bits of pollution control system.
How much do you pay for 1 gallon of gas in the US? In Sweden we pay almost $5. I wonder if such a price would change things in the US...
It's two different cars.
The second car, the Clever, runs on pressurized natural gas. Therefore, low emissions.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
My arm would be the least of my worries; it's my heart or face that I would be worried about. A Prius only has a 274V battery, but the 120A it delivers while driving is probably nothing compared to what it could deliver if you get careless with it.
dom
Low-speed acceleration is the one really good thing about electric.
Properly done, with 4 fully independant wheels, there would be some traction and handling advantages as well. Differentials are sloppy. Steering on ice would be lots easier if the rear wheels could help out via Segway-style computer-controlled speed differences.
This is actually what might gain popularity. 157mpg obtained with clever design for lightweightness and aerodynamics. At least it can fill a gap and extend the "mileage" (no pun) we can get out of Petrol till Hydrogen power or alternatives take off.
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
of hybrid and electric. An all electric car inherently has some serious issues, in particular, the five hour refueling time, limited range, and limited power. These can all be solved with a standard combustion engine or fuel cell. There are already groups out there modifying their hybrids into electric vehicles, using the electric mode for short trips and the hybrid mode for long trips.
m l
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69519-0.ht
Right you are (and I'm not even a trekkie, er, trekker). Lithium Crystals is an instant drink mix for people with bipolar disorder.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The pollution is generated wherever the power plant is, rather than inside a city. That only moves the problem, but in the LA basin it's useful to move the problem from the great bowl of people over to Nevada.
The pollution from a power plant, about half the time in the US, is coal smoke. It's CO2 with nasty contaminants. Gasoline smoke would be better, except that the smog controls on a power plant are easier to engineer. They can be big, they can be heavy, and they can require on-site technicians to keep them working well. None of those are possible on a car.
The fixed power plant can be more efficient, but some of that efficiency is stolen by transmission line losses.
Having spent most of last year living carless in the big city, I'm here to tell you that personal cargo capacity is very important factor in designing an efficient and useful low-emissions vehicle for urban transport, a factor that the 'clever' car designers seem to have ignored. Where am I going to store my groceries in this thing? I suppose the passenger seat might do the trick, but with that kind of limited space, why am I driving a car anyway? I can take a taxi just as easily, or even a bus. Hell -- maybe I could even buy a bike, which might help reduce both my fat ass and be good for the environment. What's the use in owning a car that costs twice as much as a regular car, but which has no room to transport me and the occasional junk I buy at the store?
As I see it, no urban vehicle is going to catch on with buyers unless it has some, even if limited, cargo carrying capacity. Small size is great -- especially when you consider the parking situation in most cities -- and fuel efficiency is wonderful, but if it doesn't move both me *and* my stuff, what good is it?
The 'Carver One' (am I the only one who thinks of the Bond villain when I read that?) is linked in the 'related news' section at the bottom of the article. From that I'd be inclined to believe that these cars are not similar but, in fact, the products of the same research group - it does mention other partners in the project, without specifically mentioning Carver.
DC power too -- as in you grab the wire, and your hand doesn't do the 60Hz jiggle, it just clenches it harder and harder involuntarily and you don't get a chance to let go.
Someone had to do it.
if you go to their site and read the specs they can sit quite a long time without needing a charge. And if it's at your house, duh, keep the extension cord plugged into the thing. Good excuse to get some solar panels for the garage roof as well.
gas cars at least a dime a mile to run, electric cars at todays electric prices around the US averaged out around 2 cents a mile.
For a technology to mature, the way is paved with suboptimal experimental designs and "proofs of concept". The thing is, something may be bitched about and downgraded untill there is immediate, burning problem that needs to be addressed, such as oil shortage which is looming in not so distant future. Every problem addressed here can and will be solved when pressing needs arise. Right now, it seems like a solution for distant, someone else's problem (GHG emissions->melting polar caps->oceans rise, but no worries for some of us as we are on high enaugh ground) while, on the other hand, designers are obviously 'not meaning it seriously', or in other words they pity wackos with money to burn who will pay for these toys.
... railroads!). Today's performance is result of competition inside the same category. That is why their initial quirks where tolerated - they had no substitute.
... ?).
n smission). That would create enormous advantage for invasion forces, especially if chain of satellite relays is used to beam energy from homeland power grid up to the first satelite, then from satelite to satelite, then down to any arbitrary point on the surface of the Earth. Aside from military uses, a nation in possesion of such system could allow own electric power companies to export, sell energy to any other nation, or even make other nations totally dependent ("a hand on a switch" instead of "hand on a oil tap")to this nation, create advantage for national civil engineering corporations to win any bid anywhere because of the low logistics costs... I believe there is a lot of goodies involved in it for serious, resourceful powerseekers.
It should be noted that first gas cars where also hobists' toys, inefficient, unreliable, short radius authonomy and explosion-prone, but all the problems where gradually solved, one step a time. OTOH, internal combustion engine cars had no viable competition at the time (if we exclude trains, which were constrained to
Now, it is all like a sumo match - if you press hard enaugh, you will get what you want. If we are determined to press the electric cars, people will find it worthwile to spend some effort inventing solutions for its' present problems. You have noticed that Lithium batteries are response to problem of heaviweightness and bulkiness of acid-lead batteries, but instantly there comes the next problem - endurance of these new batteries. There is a number of other problems, such as recharging time, authonomy, scaleability (you cannot go to nearest battery station and buy just a little "juice" to get car there, or carry small canister in luggage compartment), that may need complete change of viewing point (micro or nano capsulled batteries,
Perhaps new cars will have modular engines, that would allow us to reconfigure and equip them differently for different uses, i.e. when commuting between work and home, use electric subsystem, but when you go on intercity trip, swap it with internal combustion module. Or, even better, make complete powertrain electrical and just swap main battery block with electric generator(, or fuel cell), depending on intended use or personal preference. Of course, there is downside: this would require you to own a garage, or else pay for changing services and rent-a-module.
Like every time before in tech history, military will be judge of what goes and what s(t)inks. When there is mil-grade electric vehicle in comission, there will be cheaper, less robust, fancier versions for civilian use. But, why would military do such thing? Well, for one, transport of energy supplies could potentially be cheaper, faster and more reliable then transport of fuel supplies. I mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_tra
Instead of buying this, you could buy a regular car and take the $18,000 you saved and buy carbon credits. $18,000 of carbon credits in the USA, which has an underpriced market because laws don't create demand, would offset the burning of, I kid you not, close to one MILLION gallons of gasoline. Yup, enough to take an 8mpg hummer and drive it around the Earth over 300 times!
So buying one of these is like driving a Hummer almost 8 million miles. Doesn't seem so good.
At the more expensive price for European credits ($13 per metric tonne CO2) it's still like driving the Hummer for a million miles.
How can it be that dramatic? The genius of pollution credits is they move the money spent on emissions reduction to where it can be done most efficiently. You can cut emissions by buying an expensive electric car, sure, but somebody else can do it far more cheaply by improving the output of a factory, or putting up a wind farm, or planting a grove of trees -- which are all things that allow people to sell these credits.
Now you may not like the credits, or think the numbers should be different, but the numbers in this case are so off the scale that there's no way that you will do a better job of helping the environment, at least today, with this sort of tech. At best you can feel good while being a gross polluter, and hope you're encouraging a market so that they eventually become cheaper and a thus more efficient way to reduce emissions.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
...and batteries in properly engineered EVs and PHEVs are never fully cycled, so much more than that even.
Laptop batteries just aren't the same thing.
Someone had to do it.
Just imagine, go to work - unplug the battery unit briefcase.
SIt at your desk - charge up the battery for 8hrs on your company
electrical plugs, drive home and back for FREE - for 300Miles!!!
A major stumbling block for making higher efficiency-yet-ordinary-sized cars is that it is their very size, which dictates the high fuel consumption. Some gains may still be made in relation to the engine efficiency, but mostly the weight and size of the vehicle dictates roll resistance and air drag. These are the major contributing factors to the fuel economy. A minor one is how fast you want to go up a particular incline.
Here in Europe, Denmark in particular, we have had very high taxes on all kinds of fuel for decades, and this has had some obvious consequences in our choice of cars. Here in Denmark unleaded regular currently hovers around the US$6.70 (six dollars seventy cents) per US gallon if you do the math. The price hasn't been significantly lower for many years, and I suspect many over here would jump with joy if gas prices were lowered to the current US levels.
As a result a four cylinder car is the norm, six cylinder engines are unusual and eight are reserved for trucks, busses and enhusiast/luxury cars. Small and safe family cars have also been available for some time. If you just want small, then they go back decades.
In fact it was only a few days ago when walking down town that I couldn't help notice a taxi driving by. Initially I couldn't point to what had made it stand out, but I soon realized it was the large, blocky shape and the huge grille in front which had caught my eye. Sure enough, it was some huge american import car, and we don't see a lot of those for obvious reasons. The 'local' offerings from Mercedes, BMW and friends appears much more streamlined and smooth by comparison.
Bottom line: You don't have to buy a matchbox vehicle to save on fuel. Just dump a few cylinders from the engine.
AC.
At least show a bike that can be easily fabricated in either United States or the United States of America.
At least with Monocycle, you have a chance of surviving a crash by roling over it without losing balance (like rolling a tire downhill and watching it fly over the obstructions). That BMW-C1 would just launch the moment somthing stopped its leading wheel.
Look at those pictures of the BMW-C1; none in their right mind would try one because they are too fragile. Just another thing to repair when somthing breaks off. And the monocycle, because they are all mostly homebrew, use a standard engine of either independently caste parts or that of a light motorcycle. Also, compare the capabilities of a a Monocycle verses a BMW-C1 crossing unusual foundation, like how some people skip-race snow mobiles across lakes.
I'll agree, BMW is not Ford Escort, but that C1 sure appears like an attempt at abandoning foreign principles such as "quality" in favor of that future USian Soylent Brown-fueled vehicle.
without prejudice
In a lot of cases the issue is whether governments should be co-ordinating transport to cut down on pollution or whether it should be left to private individuals to use vehicles that pollute less or consume less resources. A decent train service can keep thousands of cars off the road for most of the week. An electric train, LPG bus or other forms of mass transit are often a better answer.
Greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with the issue unless you get all your electricity from hydro, geothermal or whatever - so currently in no city anywhere. The nuclear lobby is pushing nuclear generated hydrogen and nuclear supplied electricity to power cars for greenhouse reasons but whatever your feelings that can be considered irrelevant to the issue for the next decade as far as a car purchase is considered (it takes a long time to build a big thermal plant of any kind, much longer for a cutting edge nuclear design).
If I entered a car and moved to Yosemite for the week, that would be about 600 miles for the car to carry; from prior trips, it would be about 7 hours to get into the King's Canyon area. All the solutions that claim to compete with modern comustion engines on a large covered wagon and nimble chassis are just expensive Toys! If they really want to improve the capacity of these alternative vehicles, they obviously will not get any inspiration from a vehicle with the benefit of bein on the ground. Look to other areas that would achieve profit from an alternative engine, like aeroplanes and rocketry; develop a solution for those areas, and then adapt that for a solution for the people. NASA does that with its tempera-pedic beds, for example. What was it with combustion engines, being first casted with Aluminum for aircraft, and the industry learning to controll such an assembly that runs twice the temperature of the melting point for Aluminum. It's no secret; all the advancments were being made in the industrial sector, and America has lost its industry because of the global government trying to vacate America with a new Pan American Union by moving resources to cause America to deprecate into a third-wold capacity as Mexico. Today, the only technological advancements I ever hear about is in the United States Military Industrial Complex.
without prejudice
The car industry must stop showing toys presented as the "environmentally friendly" alternatives. >:[
Actually, there is nothing that stops the building of 500 BHP SUVs using electric motors - today.
Granted, batteries for such a car would be rather big yet they would not last very far given todays technology - but since we're already purchasing cars with pricetags having six digits, then how unfeasible is it to charge such 500 BHP SUVs with fuel cells, really?
All that aside, an Otto or Diesel engine using biofuels, modern engine management and state of the art emission control equipment (catalysators) are already extremely benign on the environment compared to the average car in say the '70s.
I don't know how many fellow slashdotters have been following model helicopters (I was introduced to them by Slashdot a long time ago) but China now produces some of the best model helicopters you can get. Most people don't want to admit it, but you can buy good quality brushless motors and Lithium batteries from China now at around 10% of the costs previously.
And in just the last 2 years, they have gone from a poor quality product to some of the best low-end products available in that field. (The most recent stuff is always getting better).
China is gearing up to make this stuff big time. Their new generation factories are set to
a) Make aluminium frames in this size
b) Build high power, high efficiency electric motors
c) Make lots of lithium batteries.
Because of this, they are now swamping the RC market with new product.
Now consider the "Clever Car" in the same article. Imagine that with Chinese Engineered Aluminium frames, with a chinese motor and lithium batteries.
Just 5 Kw of power in a vehicle like that would probably get you 100 Mph + speeds. (Present Chinese
electric motorbikes do about 30mph on 800w motors).
Now you have an electric car effectively made and able to be sold for around $5000 at todays prices.
And that would get cheaper with quantity.
With Petrol prices going up, people are starting to reconsider the costs of Petrol. Kind of like when we were all told it would run out in a few years (before the price started going up way back for anyone who remembers).
And you don't need enough batteries to go 300miles. Sure, people say it's needed, but that's mostly just what is accepted because that's what small cars do. Because they don't like going to the fuel station daily.
People are starting to realise that an 100 mile round-trip is an acceptable commute, and you can recharge every night while you sleep and you would never have to go to the fuel station again!
(Maybe one spare battery pack in the garage just in case!)
And the old "Family Car" is no longer so important as 4 people in a small family now all want their own cars for daily work. School, shopping, getting a video.
I wouldn't buy an electric car for $35000, but if I could buy a small electric car for $5000, I would buy it and drive to work daily instead of catching the train/bus.
But the bigger picture? The switch to electric vehicles will destroy the bigger vehicle markets as they presently are.
Just give it five more years...
Oh, and learn to speak Chinese so you can call them when the red light flashes and it doesn't go.
GrpA.
The first question that always pops into my head with an electric car is what do I do when I'm away from home and low on charge. The second is how long do I have to sit there if I do run out of juice, but can recharge.
If they put a decent sports bike engine in the Clever Car it
would sell by the bucket load as a recreational vehicle for those
who don't want the risks of a motorbike.
But as an everyday enviromental commuting vehicle? Hmm. Not so sure.
Ok , it might have good mileage but having gas cylinders right at
the back of the car where they're a prime target to be hit and crushed?
Not to mention the vehicle itself doesn't exactly look volvo-esque in
its ability to protect its occupants plus its got very little storage
space.
Also at one metre wide its hardly going to be able to squeeze
between traffic like a bike can especially when it leans over hard.
Seems to me its got all the disadvantages of a bike (dangerous, little
storage space) and a car (slow, stuck in traffic) , and none of the
advantages of either.
Its ONLY selling point is its mpg and novelty value. Well sorry, but in
a competitive market you need more than that to sell a vehicle.
new "Clever car" (Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport)
Sure, but it's not such a clevut acronym.
broke it. They will not meet their targets, and frankly, the only reason they are within a country mile is the annexation of East Germany by West, and the fact that Britain turned out to be sitting on a zillion cubic feet of natural gas. Most European nations are performing terribly, many even worse than the US (in relative terms to 1990 baseline). Also, Europe has had very little population growth, while the US has.
Europeans like to play "holier than thou", but in reality, their lower emissions are largely due to population density and mild climate. Not surprisingly, low-density, harsh-climate nations such as US, Canada, and Australia all have similar emissions profiles.
Didn't they review this thing on top gear and say it was on sale for £22,000
Or, how 'bout if we can go to Citgo, AM/PM or Shell and get a couple of hi-dose burritos or natto and recharge our cars as we pass gas from one form to another.
Talk about and organic Lithium cracking station. Better set up the A/C boosted (power and air chiller) charcoal-activated-charcoal vacs-- otherwise the miniature ion storm will gaspirate you passengers... with a one-two combo lung-whacking, brain-thumping adiabatic/isentropic booting/boosting out the window at highway speeds...
HEHE SLASSSSHHHH!!!!! LOL!!! Image word: "disagree"
(I s'pose my post will found to be "disagreeable")
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Ok and now how about a car that actually looks normal? Seriously when will car manufacturers grow up and stop producing these ridiculously shaped cars that only green freaks will drive. If I wanted to drive a 3 wheeled buggy I would have bought a 3 wheeled buggy a LONG time ago. All people really want is a car that looks like a car, feels like a car, drives like a car and just has an electric engine, that's why Hybrids work so fucking well - they just look like cars.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
First off the idea a car full of batteries does not appeal to me. What about a crash? Is every accident going to turn into a hazardous materials accident? I know its an exaggeration but the question I have is, why fixation on batteries?
Battery powered or assisted cars are a stop-gap. The only true replacement will be one where the driving public does not have to change their habits. What is the performance and longevity of these battery powered cars in the winters of the northern states?
I am still curious as to where diesel or gas electric designs are going. A small, 1l or so diesel running at a constant velocity should be able to drive about any car from the electricity it can generate. Dodge actually made an Intrepid concept car using this idea.
I'm all for my SUV being packed with a small diesel or gas motor that drives a generator which powers electric motors at the wheels. I am not for hauling batteries around or their equivalent (hydrogen). We have an infrastructure to move gasoline and diesel, exploit it.
The more I see of it the move to Hydrogen and the current crop of battery assisted/powered cars is nothing more than trying to glamorize a shift in how we conceive the automobile. Its a lot of marketing and very little real accomplishment. Most of these hybrids will never pay for themselves.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
comfortable? get in your armchair sprung mid range saloon car with built in seat warmers old man !! ;-)
Ok on one level you're right, it will never be as comfortable as your big phat saloon car - but I think if these guys go for that market, they are missing the point. They should go for the fun, young, sporty market. Maybe the BMW C-1 looked too much like a crappy low grade scooter with a big roll cage on it "the scooter for people too scared to be on two wheels". Maybe it's just marketing but this thing looks more sporty.. as the video says, people who like the buzz of motorcycles but maybe don't want to get dressed up in leathers in the morning. Look at the success of the Smart cars in Europe - they've hit that trendy hip young web designer/PR executive market. These guys would be wise to aim at the same sort of market - internet execs and city traders who want to believe they are hip, only carry a small bag with a laptop and a couple of gadgets (and maybe pick up a bag of shopping during the day), want to zip in and out of traffic and park up in small spaces, want to show off a bit to their friends.
Got to say it looks a lot of fun. And 60mph, well tell me the last time you managed that in rush hour in a big city, as long as it has acceleration and get up to that, it's fine for urban driving.
Add in some sort of greenish credentials and you're away, heck I reckon if the engine technology was a stumbling block you could stick in a motorbike engine and it would still pick up sales, given the benefits on lowered insurance ratings and lower fuel costs from the tiny engine.
You were doing well until you repeated that old hybrid-EMT scare. Any first responders that were afraid to approach a hybrid weren't well informed in their profession. I can't speak for Honda, but not only did Toyota work with national first-responder organizations to get their comments on the design of the US model, it made presentations on its design at their national conventions, made publications about it in the trade press, and distributed literature about the car freely and widely. The locations of the high-voltage elements of the car have been available on the web since time immemorial, and Toyota, at least, spent a lot of time repeating over and over that there's no high voltage in the roof pillars (how do these rumors get started?!?).
Both Toyota and Honda were and are exquisitely well-aware of accident procedures involving their cars; that's why the high-voltage lines in the Prius are armored International Orange cables isolated from the ground of the chassis, surrounded by identified conduit, and centered under the car floor, where the jaws of life and other EMT tools are least likely to be used. The battery itself is placed in the statistically safest place in the car (just over the rear axle), and protects first responders by an accelerometer-based circuit breaker, a Ground Fault Interrupter, and interlocks. Criminy, what do you want?
Why do people and specially americans always think that "bigger" always means "more secure" ?
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Civics get around 40mpg highway, which really isn't all that bad. If people just dropped their SUV's for smaller cars, that would go a very long way in reducing carbon output. Being in my 20s, I want something fun and semi-sporty to drive but practical in terms of initial cost, maintainence, and gas mileage. I don't really trust hybrid technology to be as reliable and inexpensive to maintain as simpler models over the long term. I think many of those in my age group and budget range (~$16,000 new) have similar requirements and while there are some cars that mostly fit the bill, what I'd really like is something that fits these critera and is RWD.
8 7883460710&q=oversteer&pl=true
I currently drive a Civic, which is nice, but it's not RWD. Why look for RWD? RWD kind of has gotten bad rap over the years, because it can oversteer in wet/icy conditions, or when gassed too hard - the steering becomes so sensitive that the rear end of the car can slip towards the outside of the turning circle. When done in a controlled manner, this can a lot of fun, the rear end of the car literally steers around you, and you feel the car pivoting around from behind. Steering FWD is boring in comparison, the rear end always follows the front end, up by the hood. Now oversteer does not mean that RWD cars handle poorly, just that they become acutely sensitive to steering when on slippery roads or when gassed hard. A good driver understands that he can use this to his advantage, as the same overly sensitive steering that can throw the car off path can be used to correct it.
Here is a google video demonstrating oversteer -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-25708751
Search for oversteer or drift and you will find lots more.
Modern tech could also make such a car more practical. On cars equipped with ABS, which is most models these days, stability control can be added to selectively enable/disable oversteer prevention at the push of a button. Software within the car's computer detects oversteer and cuts engine spark/power and/or hits the brakes on individual wheels (using the ABS hardware) to largely cut out out oversteer. Car review magazines refer to stability control as the "nanny," for good reason. This sort of tech would help make a compact RWD car attractive to a wider range of buyers, who might not want to be so conscientious of their driving all the time, but want to have some fun once in a while.
Another thing that could widen the appeal of such a car would be to make it tweakable, say through adding a USB engine computer interface, or offering an MP3 capable stereo option that has USB inputs for external drives and takes customizable firmware. While this would most definitely appeal to the \. crowd, I think over time the appeal could carry over to a wider audience, as youth today are much more tech saavy and a lot of customizations could be made by third parties. Neither of these options would cost a ton, and could translate into some serious sales.
I hope Honda will eventually make such a car, perhaps in the same class as it's new budget Fit model, but that doesn't seem likely. If anyone takes the leap I think it will be Nissan, they have been doing more unconvential designs lately, being the underdog. They still don't match the quality of the big two Japanese auto makers, but I would serisouly consider it if such a model arrived.
I think the coolest car out there today is the SMART car -- http://www.smartcar-usa.com/
I look forward to testing them out once they come to the U.S. market. Apparently they are remarkably safe, too. 60 MPG if I remember correctly.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
I'm not sure I can relate to "$3" as highly priced gasoline. In most of Europe, we pay about $7-8 pr. gallon(we call it 'market price'). It was about $5-6 before we sent the guys down to Iraq. So 3 dollars/gallon would generally be considered an open invitation to by bigger cars and just drive them around for pleasure. But hybrids is no news. We have had electric cars on the streets for some years. But I welcome any initiative there lessens the dependancy of oil. I mean: If we waste it all on energy consumption, we really need to find something else to use in industry(for lubrication and other uses, where we cant replace oil with hydrogen/wind/whatever)
You can get it fast, you can get it good, You can get it cheap. Pick two!
Even if we use all politically acceptable sources of renewable power, there will not be enough to go around.
Remember that e.g. solar cells need to produce enough power to pay back their production, distribution, installation, maintenance and disposal costs, plus the cost of backup generation for night time, before we get any net benefit. (Unfortunately some of my fellow enviromentalists ignore these costs and sometimes support schemes that actually waste energy overall)
So the electricity for electric cars will, in effect, come from the next cleanest source. For example burning Oil, or Natural Gas.
Parent is correct that it is more efficient to have the car burn hydrocarbon fuels directly, rather than go via electricity.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Are you sure ?
Engeneering is much more critical than just plain mass.
If a car is designed to withstand very high shocks, it doesn't matter if they come from a wall (fixed to the ground) or another car (which will decelerate too), as long as it can resist from all critical directions (including shocks from top if heavy car ends up landing on top of small car).
That and use seat-belt + airbag + avoid to have free sharp objects inside the car.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The problem with 100% electric cars is heating. If you can easily develop 1000W with a battery, getting 4000W out of it in the winter so you can feel comfortable and defrost your windows is ridiculous with the technology we have right now.
What makes more sense than electic cars is electric motorcycles since they don't have to heat the driver. I use an electric bicycle myself to get to work everyday (Bionx) and 5 months a year, I do not buy a single drop of gasoline.
Apparently, Vectrix is about to release a 100km/h capable motorcycle really soon. This vehicle has an autonomy of 240km. More than enough for commuting.
I wish I was living in the USA to put my hand on one because it does not look like the company has plans to sell that bike in Canada.
Secondly, this car is recumbent which puts your eyeline very close to the ground which is a total disaster in a complicated driving environment, whereas on a motorcycle you have excellent visibility at a height comparable to the majority of vehicles. In other words, on a motorcycle you are not effectively blinded by every vehicle in front of you, or in any other direction.
Some of the responses to this were flip: "Hey, we call that a motorcycle," but in reality this vehicle and a motorcycle are radically different in many of the ways that really matter in an urban driving environment. And since I am a rider, I won't make the "Yeah, well motorcycles are deathtraps, too," argument that could also be brought up here, :-). But in any case. This thing is not a motorcycle. It has huge disadvantages relative to normal sized cars and none of the advantages of a motorcycle.
You msut be kidding. Petrol is nearly £1 a litre here, that's about $7 a gallon for you imperialists.
"The kind (of batteries) that power your cell phone may power your car in the future,"
Now that's getting interesting. I was waiting for efficient and usable electric cars and here they are. The only thing that I'm wondering is about the life of those batteries. What I mean is how long before they can't hold their charge and must be replaced. Life of a cell phone battery is around one year. If this is the same for those cars and if the cost of batteries are high, maybe this isn't such a great deal.There is something similar that goes around the road in Europe. It has the same length as the width of a SUV.
SMART car
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
"The car is one meter wide and less polluting than normal vehicles. It has a top speed of 100 km/h (60mph) and uses a novel tilting chassis to make it safe and maneuverable."
Yes, I will feel really safe driving a 1 meter-wide vehicle around on the road alongside teenagers in SUV's talking on cell phones.
I happened to catch a show of Nova this week where they discussed global dimming. Apparently, lower pollution means less light reflected into space and that means the Earth will heat up faster, so cleaner cars paradoxically contribute to goal warming.
Oh ?
How about:
a) Invest in oil companies.
b) Don't pick the largest engine displacement when buying a new car.
Hybrids cost less and are fun to drive
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Now people can out and spend twice as much on a car too save on gas prices for the car they havn't even paid off.
Just seems like your moving the pollution upstream to the power plant. It would be a good bargaining chip for the pro-nuke-power groups I suppose. I'd like to see the world break out of the oil whoring, and into the hydrogen whoring myself. If there needs to be whoring done, lets at least whore where everyone can join in, not just the middle east.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
To charge the batteries electrical power is needed.
Electrical power is created by burning stuff, like oil.
Low emission cars can only be worse for the environment, because you convert energy to other energyforms much more times.
Compare:
- Oil -> Refined oil (gas) -> exothermic reaction -> movement
- Oil (or coal or garbage) [ -> Refined oil ] -> exothermic reaction -> movement -> electricity -> chemical energy (battery) -> electricity -> magnetic energy -> movement
Which one do you think will be more efficient?
Use the old batteries to run a meth lab. What's that you say meth lab? From wiki "Unused lithium batteries provide a convenient source of lithium metal for use as a reducing agent in illegal methamphetamine labs. Some jurisdictions restrict or limit the sale of lithum batteries in an attempt to help curb the creation of illegal meth labs." I had no idea.
All you're doing is replacing one problem with another.
All the Smog will disappear, but the world'll be full of toxic Smug.
The Troll moderation is unfair -- the electric car is impractical in the minds of most Americans. It's twice the price of a comparable car, and people aren't even buying hybrids right now because of the measily $3000 premium, much less a $15k-$18 premium. There's no way you'd make up those costs.
Furthermore, people are perpetually worried about the range problem in spite of the fact that they could rent a car for the rare, once or twice a year long vacation. Having to make a 5 hour stop every 300 miles kills the viability of the vehicle for long trips and people irrationally place a lot of stock in that.
This car is dead in the water before it's even sold.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Because it's easier to put massive complex pollution control systems on a few centralized power plants than to create milions of small, complex, pollution control systems on every vehicle on the market.
Also, it means an end (or an overwhelming reduction) to fuel spills, tanker trucks, etc..
Clear, Dark Skies
My 1987 Geo Metro/Sprint got 50 mpg highway. It was also cool to be able to make a U-turn on a narrow road without having to back up..
Clear, Dark Skies
They can't do that. It would probably invalidate the EPA ratings, and result in more warranty claims. Otherwise the manufacturer would have tuned them for more power in the first place.
I'm suprised no one has mentioned the fact that batteries life gets much shorter as the batteries age, especially when they experience multiple deep discharges. There is no such thing as a battery that will last for 20 years aside from wet cells(with a lot of maintenance), and some of the best VRLA batteries won't last more than 5. Who manufactures the batteries anyways? I'd be interested to see resistance data and discharge data as these batteries age because I doubt people will want to fork over the $5-10k for replacing the batteries after 5-10 years when their car won't maintain voltage. This would certainly lead to an abundance of new junk. Also, what happens if a cell goes into thermal runaway, Is there even any type of monitoring there?
"Oil sits at 4%, a large chunk in my opinion"
That's only because you said it before, and now you don't want to back off of it. 4% is nothing. A "large chunk" is overstatement, and simply not accurate by any metric.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
...vehicles have to look like spaceships?
Why can't some car manufacturer just take a current model, hopefully a decent one, and adapt it to run on electricity. Stuff batteries in every nook and cranny, do whatever it takes. I don't care is it only manages 200Ml.
I do most of my driving in and around my major metroplotian city. If my daily trips exceed 40Mls roundtrip, then someone probabably stole my car, and I drive a lot comparitivly. many of my cowroker and friends only dirve to/from work most days. For them, it's moreon the order of 10Mls r/t. Remember, I live in a large city.
I think carmakers are going for the brass ring. Stop. You haven't even gotten there with gas engined cars; why try it with electrics/ZEV's. Give is incremental advances and many of us who would be early adopter would be just fine. Hell, 200Mls would get me to NYC. That's about as far as I'm likely to go on the humbug anyway.
But, howvever, I'' tell you now. I will NEVER buy anything that looks like a spaceship, or would get me beeat up at the local pub.
Heybiff
Even the Sun goes down.
Funny, when I made the mistake of leaving my cellphone in a hot car for more then a few hours, the heat essentially ruined the battery, so know I only get like 10 minutes of charge. Same goes when I left my laptop in a hot car, only 8 minutes of charge.
Despite Li batteries not having the memory effect of other forms of rechargeable batteries, I am very careful not to leave them in the heat or in the extreme cold because these two factors have the effect of dramatically reducing the charge time these batteries can hold.
I am more then skeptical about using Li batteries in a car, where internal temperatures can reach over 150 F. Even if the battery is exposed to cooler outside air, if you live in California or Arizona or some other hot climate, are you going to have to deal with a battery that quickly diminishes in performance over a short period of time because of the heat?
While Li batteries might be a quick fix for battery powered cars, I doubt they will offer any long term solutions, and once consumers realize they might have to replace a $5,000 - $10,000 battery once every year or two, their popularity will diminish quicker then the batteries charge.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Have a read of the following:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/apr06/3173/3
which includes a description of the Japanses kei cars. This is a brilliant example of a government recognising a problem that will not be solved by the market alone (everyone buying SUV's) and creating through legislation a competitive advantage to those willing to be more fuel efficient and drive smaller cars.
The GM Lean Machine from the early 80's.
The Mercedes F300 LifeJet.
The Vandenbrink Carver.
Trust the British to think it's a new concept.
As the size of this is only one meter wide, think of the savings that this vehicle has on parking spaces? As this is the voiture du jour, the latest casket on wheels, think of the money saved? No need for an additional coffin as these babies are smaller and are no longer needed after one accident.
My 1992 Ford Festiva gets about 40mpg. My 1982 VW Rabbit (diesel) did even better - even with the air conditioner on.
BTW: why is diesel fuel so expensive? Certainly it is cheaper to make than regular. Diesel used to cost half as much as regular. If diesel cost less, maybe more people would drive diesels, and thereby save fuel.
When I see these commercials for uber-expensive hybreds that get 31mpg, I'm just not that impressed.
Just piping in - I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid before they were "cool"... it rocks. Best money ever spend. Runs perfect, 60mpg+ in the city, and powerful enough to pass/merge etc. Cannot say enough good things about it. Wife and I were talking about getting a new car... we're ONLY looking at hybrids. With 600+ miles from a tank of gas, $3 a gallon doesn't hurt me nearly as bad as the poor fellows I see driving 1/2 ton pickup trucks as commuter vehicles. I suppose its all where you want to spend your pennies.
When you say Hummer, I am sure you probably mean actually H2 or H3. I drive a H1 or actually a military Humvee. I am sure that in a collision with anything less than a dump truck the other vehicle would be severely damaged and the Humvee just fine. After driving it for 2 years in many conditions including the evacuation for Katrina mostly off-road, I am quite confident in its capabilities.
There's a company called Hybrid technologies that's launching this car, which also run on Lithium-based batteries.
Here's a business week story on them. It looks a bit like vaporware though, so a grain of salt is recommended.
RWD adds too much weight. Go down to a junk yard, and find the main drive shaft, and rear axle housing (stripped, less the diff, axles, brake plates, etc...) of a compact pickup truck like a Ford Ranger, Mazda B2000, or a Chevy S10. That's weight that simply doesn't exist in a FWD car.
The test the GP refers to is running into a fixed object.
Sure, when you hit the civic, you'll kill the occupants without even noticing. But when it coms to hitting a utility pole or a wall, the occupants of the Civic have a better chance than you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I saw those BMWs in the media. In the UK it was classed as a motorcycle and hence the law required the wearing of a crash helmet.
As for the CLEVER, it looks like a bit of a rip off of a Carver One which has just gone on sale. Though the Carver One is definitely designed as more of a fun/performance vehicle.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
I am really tired of people lumping the H1 and H2,3 into the same category "Hummer". The H1/Humvee is an excellent vehicle for it stability and power. The H2 and H3 and square shaped SUVs that have nothing to do with the original Hummer. GM bought the name, copied some of the look and created this "cheap" imitation for people that could not drive/afford the real vehicle. Driving an H1 is neither easy or pleasant in regular traffic every day. It comes also with a responsibility. Don't drive the H1 @ 80 mph while on the phone.
The Toyota Corolla was RWD until I think 1986. It's axle housing and transmission were light enough to pick up and move around oneself. It does add weight and reduce cabin space, but a solution is workable.
I have leveled quite a few trees running at 30 mph on a field. I am sure I could hit a pole or a wall and will break through fine. Have you ever ridden in one in those conditions or are you just talking from your Civic experience ? Have you ever looked closely at the Humvee frame / body, it's seats, seat belts ? The Humvee is not designed to crumple in an impact. It is designed to break through that obstacle or roll over it.
Tortured acronyms designed to appear clever...TADTAC for short.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
BIIIIIIIIIIIIG Difference
Lithium batteries are disposable (not rechargable) and expensive.
Lithium-Ion batteries aren't exactly cheap but at least you can recharge them.
Exactly.
By the way, having a military armoured version makes things only worse. You have essentially the same frame, but a much heavier vehicle. In addition to that you may also have stiffened elements in the crumple zones due to retrofitted armour plating. As a result the frame itself will be subjected to much higher loads in a crash and stands a much higher chance of collapsing on your head.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Almost a year ago, my wife and I were driving our 1995 Honda Civic at 70 MPH (the speed-limit) down I-85 in North Georgia, towards Atlanta. We were in the right lane, without a worry on our mind. All of a sudden, *WHUMP*, the car gets hit on the left-rear quarter-panel and starts spinning out of control. *WHUMP* The 18-wheeler that hit us the first time hits us a second time on the driver's side door (where I was at the time). It might have hit us a third time, but I'm not certain. Things were going pretty fast at that time and I was just trying to keep from dying. Needless to say, I survived. Amazingly, my wife and I both got out of that accident without a scratch or even a bruise. The car was totaled - in insurance terms, that is. I was still able to drive it off the exit ramp (at the cops' request).
Point is, I've often thought about what would have happened if we had been in an SUV. I suspect the situation would have ended up worse, not better, although I admit this is just a supposition. Alternatively, if we had also been driving an 18-wheeler, it could have been very, very ugly.
Here are some pictures of the car after the accident. Oh, and not that it's relevant to the subject at hand, but a witness (another truck driver) reported seeing the driving of the tractor-trailer on her cell phone at the time of the accident. Also, after she quit trying to blame the accident on us (we had two witnesses that verified our version of the story), she broke down and said that if she's found at fault for this accident she'll get fired from her job, just like she did from her last truck driving job when she hit a car.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
It will break the concrete wall. If not, being in another car would not make a difference, either.
This would probably never work in the litigious USA, but my master plan was to take part of the left lane and shoulder of every major highway and turn it into a motorcycle-only lane. Sort of like the carpool lanes, but narrower and only for motorcycles. Then apply a stricter testing methodology including more defensive riding classes for all new motorcycle licensees, as well as mandatory motorcycle safety lessons of some sort for ALL motorists. Then promote the use of the motorcycle lanes by providing some sort of tax benefit to riding a motorcycle instead of driving.
A plan like this could significantly reduce urban traffic congestion as well as smog. Unfortunately it would work until little Johnny was a dumbass and got himself killed because the GOVERNMENT gave him money to ride a motorcycle and his mommy sues and wins.
www.clarke.ca
This is not an armoured vehicle, just a standard 1998 military Hummer with a gasoline engine. There are additional reinforcements on the frame and body and undrecarriage protection. The frontal frame points and front bar are designed to break apart a barrier and go through it. Watch some of the videos of Hummers in Iraq going through some walls. Mostly bricks in those cases, but same idea. I have 16 vehicles. My favourites are not large trucks, but a 73 Pantera, an 86 Maserati Biturbo and a 86 Jaguar XJS V12. However, after an accident 2 years ago when a confused lady broadsided my wife's Durango and she was quite damaged, I have switched regular driving to the H1 and a 90 full size Bronco with 35" military tires and a 6" lift kit. Gets people's attention, which they should do in the first place instead of yakking on the phone and recklessly driving their Suburban's while smaller cars scurry out of the way. I said before. Drive an H1, hit a few things with it, then you would get the idea of what beast it is.
The expense is only due to the relatively retarded way we tax trucking in the U.S. (via a tax on diesel fuel), and limited demand (due to the tax, and perceived limited availibility). Also, in Northern U.S. states, diesel fuel production / importation is often cut back in the winter in favor of heating oil (which is chemically similar).
If you removed the tax from diesel fuel and allowed it to compete on technical merits alone, I think you'd see the prices even out as more people drove diesel vehicles. It takes less crude oil to make diesel fuel than it does to make gasoline, barrel for barrel, and the refining process is simpler; over time, it ought to cost less than gas. Also, the engines last longer, due to the better lubricating properties of the fuel, and of course you get an increase in efficiency and range (for the same size fuel tank).
The cost increase is mostly artificial, and could probably be remedied in a few years, if the motivation existed to re-think the tax structure on it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So, in short you're saying there's literally nothing you don't feel comfortable that you can't drive through.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I just realized that all this neat gas & energy saving technology that America now needs will accomplish one thing: empowering the SUV. I just heard a report on the radio (but cannot confirm it with an internet article) that the ratio between 4 6 & 8 cylinder vehicles is staying the same even as gas prices go up. That means the average American does not care about fuel prices.
If all the Americans who do care buy super fuel effecient cars that will keep the price of gas in check and empower the owners of the gas guzzling SUV's.
Personally, I traded my Toyota Tacoma (which is one of the most fuel effecient trucks available) for a Hyundai Elantra, and am glad I did it.
I Do C++
I've recently been introduced to a wonderful Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle, which usually secretes only a small amount of a sodium chloride / urea solution. Through imaginative manufacturing, the costs of these vehicles have been reduced greatly. I believe they are mostly used in European and Asian countries, as they are a bit small for Americans, outside of an interested hobbyist. They run on kinetic power, and the fuel cell takes any kind of organic matter to be powered: scientists are still discussing the proper blends of ingredients, but most will work.
On top of that, throughout the transportation process there's been shown some health benefits. Since it is a bit unconventional, specialty equipment is recommended or required depending on local statutes, although this being a new technology most commuters and local governments seem to be unaware of it.
I can't find too much more information about this online, but a gentleman at a university was able to provide me with a schema of this vehicle, which you can find here.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I'd like to be more careful which 'problems' I allow the government attempt to solve through involuntary compulsion. I don't see why the free market will not solve this problem. Perhaps the reason it has not done so already is that we really don't have a problem. What exactly is 'the problem' that your post refers to?
Why is it that we continually endure rants about SUV's and their gargantuan size, but when someone makes a car that addresses that very problem, it gets panned because it's too small.
You can't have it both ways.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
I did not say that, but I would take on a concrete wall with much less fear than in a Japanese car or modern crappy SUV Hummer clone.
I'm quite sure that there are plenty of concrete walls the thing can't break. It is just a matter of having enough concrete.
If not, being in another car would not make a difference, either.
Yes it would. Because the thing is designed _not_ to crumple on impact, the passengers will be squished if it doesn't break through the obstacle. Vehicles designed for passenger survivability (outside war zones) will subject the passengers to lower forces in case of a crash, so the car will get squished instead of the passengers.
Fossil fuels that burn to produce electricity? Nuclear reactions which produce waste? Is anything being accomplished? This is why electric/hybrid cars are NOT the answer. We need to wipe the slate and come up with something new.
Actually now that i think about it, a cost comparasin must be made as well as a emissions comparasin.
How much does it cost to get this car to go 300mi, vs a similar sized car using gasoline.
How much emission does what ever system produce to produce the amount of electricty to "fill up" this car. vs how much emission is produced if a similar car were to go 300mi on gasoline.
But... Any technological advancement applies to FWD as well. It's sort of like the old serial vs. parallel debate. I.e. "anything you can do with a serial bitstream, I can do n times faster in parallel". (from a day when men were men, and signal voltages were 5 volts... None of this fragile 1.7 volt stuff... but I digress...) Generating your mechanical energy at one end of the car, and moving it to the other end for application to the road surface is going to carry a weight penalty.
What you really want is a mid-engine car, like a early-80's MR2. How that little gem ever made it off the drawing board and into production is anyone's guess. We won't mention it's GM ripoff/clone... LOL!
The new Citroen Stop & Start is a great example of innovative energy efficiency in a normal car. Whenever you press the brake it kills the engine and then starts it within 400 ms when you release it. So, you're sitting in traffic for 30 minutes and you save 30 minutes of gasoline. It's only 15% more efficient than a regular car but it requires NO compromise from the driver in terms of performance or features- no fancy, legacy or expensive technology. Something like this should be mandatory in all new cars.
Whatever happened to making methane fuel from cow crap?
I would buy a plug-in car if I could be guaranteed that when I go on lengthy trips that there would be a place to plug it in / recharge it (5 hrs doesn't sound too bad to me, time for food & a nap) ... just like I can be guaranteed there's going to be a gas station around every freakin' corner
the "clever car" looks like it was designed by a nerd on a friday night?
Where does a guy's date sit?
safety - sex? clever car - motorcycle? Which to choose, which to choose.
The coolest open 4 wheeler costs for about $40000:
Weighs 1000 pounds
220 Bhp Honda VTEC w/6 speeds
2 seats
Better power to weight ratio than most $100000 sports cars.
0-100-0 mph in 10.88 seconds
Science is the Real TRUTH!
A car will never be safe while there's a human at the controls. And the Lithium car just moves the expense of gasoline to the batteries. We really need to learn how to capture the methane escaping from the planet. Since the oceans can barely turn it into breathable air anymore, we ought to take a crack at it. I know, burning it won't do that, but the stuff is still coming up. We should do something with it. This will provide us needed energy for a very long time. The infrastructure doesn't need to be so polluting as that of crude oil or battery manufacture. And the oil companies can keep pretty tight control of it, unlike solar or wind or small hydros, so they have an incentive to invest. I think methane could be very profitable. And there's lot's of it. Then we could build some cool, clean burning Stirling hybrid cars.
What?
Gray Davis lost his election over the energy crisis...
s/lost his election/was forced out of office/
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It has been shown that driving while phoning is dangerous. Some studies showed results similar to driving while intoxicated.
If most pay attention, they will notice irregular driving at times (swirving, slow merging, no blinkers, over braking, or other faulty driving), and you can probably guess the cause. Far more phone drivers than drunks.
Yes, it is every other drivers business.
There may be existing laws that state that while driving, you should not perform activities that distract or impair your judgement. But the laws may not be enforced.
There is a car maker in my home town that has been making cars like this for years now http://www.myersmotors.com/ They are 100% electric and about $10,000 less pluse top speed is 15 mph faster.
In this day and age of cars as penis extensions, SUVs will always beat small vehicles.
"You *JUST DONT NEED A CAR*. You dont need it at all."
Well, I work 40 miles from my home, in a state with no significant public transportation at all. I DO need a car. And I hate that fact, but it's still a fact.
All the pie in the sky, wishful thinking, anti-technology ranting in the world won't change a damned thing, so save it, no one is listening.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Or you could get a VW Lupo TDI 1.2L which can get 82mpg and run on soybeans. Why don't more people endorse diesel? Even a TDI Golf (large very comfortable hatcback with 110hp) can get 45mpg!!! And as long as the weather is warm they can run on BioDeisel. Too bad they don't sell the Lupos in the USA.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles are Electric cars. This car has finite supply of power. Fuel Cell makes it's electric power from a electrochemical energy conversion device that is similar to a battery. So if you live in California, aim to lease a Hydrogen powered car. They have dozens (16 in all, more planned) of fuel stations in SF and LA.
\
This piece of shit caused a section of the fucking University car park to be closed off so that they could take photos. I was late for my Logic lecture, for chrissakes...clever car my ass.
A leaning tricycle isn't a "novel tilting chassis".
Behold, the GM Lean Machine: http://www.3wheelers.com/gmlean.html and http://www.maxmatic.com/ttw_leanmachine.htm. And I'm sure there are other examples of this type of thing. The Clever vehicle uses an automatic electronically controlled hydraulic system to accomplish the tilting, which seems unnecesarily complex. The Lean Machine used foot pedals.
EPCOT had a Lean Machine on display for years in the 1980's. I've always wanted one. The Carver mentioned elsewhere in this thread looks cool. High performance - leans into turns like a motorcycle, but it's enclosed so you don't get wet in the rain. And you could put air conditioning in it, which is not an optional item in Florida.
This which you describe sounds basically like what an EGR valve does as well.
The Atkinson cycle might be smarter though, as it requires no expensive and failure-prone EGR valve.
> I would take on a concrete wall with much less fear than in a Japanese car or modern crappy SUV Hummer clone.
Sadly, that only goes to show how little you know about vehicular safety.
Modern cars are specifically designed to crumple in an accident---read up on crumple zones. The damage to the car slows down the collision, which means less damaging impact occurs to the people inside the car.
It's exactly the same idea as is behind a motorcycle helmet---they're designed to break in a crash, so the energy of the crash is expended in deforming the helmet rather than your skull. Your (mistaken) belief that a stiff vehicle like a hummer is safer is just as foolish as saying that a solid-steel helmet would be safer than a real motorcycle helmet. The steel one wouldn't break, but it would transfer the force efficiently to your head, so you might well break.
That's not the only problem with a hummer, either; a related problem is that, since the whole vehicle is stiff, if it is involved in a fierce enough collision that some deformation must occur (i.e., a strong wall or another large vehicle), the weak point where that deformation occurs is more likely to be in the passenger compartment---which is where you least want it to be---than in the engine compartment or somewhere similar.
Ironically, when you scoff at a car for suffering damage in a crash, you're laughing at a safety feature---the car suffers damage so you don't have to. If you actually do care about safety, you might want to do some reading---you have some very severe misconceptions.
Actually, a few companies used to advertise with fuel milage, such as this ad.
Yes, I do drive one of these cars, no flames over the fact its an old diesel that smokes more and such, I still have it for the 35 mpg in city and 43-48 mpg interstate, depending on the terrain.
Most people I would probably never realize these numbers when they drive one of these if they owned one of those suv's as it is underpowered and slower than almost anything I've driven. The key idea for me is just patience, I'll gladly take 5 minutes longer on a 2 hour drive to save a few bucks.
Why do they not advertise like this anymore? Idiots will use for false advertisement when their shiny new 50 mpg car doesn't get 50 mpg as they beat the crap out of it in the fast lane on the interstate trying to cruise 85 mph.
-Shawn
From a look at the clever car*, my first impression is there's going to be an issue with weight. And no, I'm not talking about Americans being too fat to fit inside. It's a simple concept of weight-ratios.
... if I have an 18-wheeler lock its brakes behind me, you bet I'd rather be in a Lincoln Aviator or an H2 than in a clever car, smart car, or motorcycle. Shoot, if I get in a wreck with a schoolbus or an SUV, same story. And don't give me that "well people should stop buying SUVs and you wouldn't have a problem" tripe.
... um ... CLEVFUT ... yeah, I totally get how they turn that into "clever"
I worked on a solar-car team at Texas A&M, and trust me, ultralight cars have weight problems that average ones just don't have to deal with. Our own car had limits - if you weight over or under a certain amount, the car wouldn't be safe to drive.
Think about it: if your car weighs 2500 - 3000 pounds, it doesn't matter if you're an anorexic 90-pound Paris Hilton wannabe, or a 350-pound linebacker. Your car will perform relatively the same, and the suspension will help the car stay in control quite simply.
Now imagine your car weighs 500 pounds. There's a huge difference! Even a change from a 120-pound teenager to a 240-pound mother-to-be would result in significantly different needs in the suspension system to keep the weight balanced & distributed correctly during acceleration, braking, turning, and any other activity your average car is engineered to handle safely.
And don't get me started on crash safety
* By the way, what's up with "Clever car (Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport)"
You got repeatedly modded up for supporting RWD, with absolutely no reasons as to WHY it could possibly be better than FWD, other than "fun". That's definately not what fuel-effecient vehicles need for wide public acceptance right now.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I put a small propane heater in my ancient VW bus* once, just to get winter heat. Didn't add much weight at all and threw some good therms. I imagine if they engineered it right into the vehicle it couild be done cheaply enough to make the electrics practical in northern climes.
*yes I know there was a gasoline heater option for those things, I just didn't have one, the heater I got was around 30$.
Buying carbon credits would be great, if it reduces pollution.
But how does it do that?
Supposedly it takes a certain amount of carbon emission "off the market". But that implies the amount of carbon emitted is controlled somehow. But funny thing, I drive by a firewood vendor sometimes on the way to work. He doesn't seem to be closed some days because he's exceeded his quota of carbon he could sell. And on weekends my neighbors all start up their lawnmowers (mine is electric) and start emitting CO2 into the air. I don't see them having limits on how often they can do this.
Maybe the limits are at the pump then? They can't buy the fuel to burn, thus limiting the carbon? I can't remember the last time I saw even one gas station closed due to "exceeded carbon limits", let alone enough of them to make a difference.
I don't see how buying these credits actually reduces carbon pollution in a major way.
Also, the planting a grove of trees thing is essentially a scam too. Unless the money you're paying buys the land and establishes an ownership trust in perpetuity (like a gravesite), the carbon is only being temporarily held in those trees. Because as soon as they are cut down and burned, it's released again.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Losses in electric transmission are typically less than 10% from power plant to outlet. Steam-turbine power plants convert the chemical energy of coal or oil to heat (by burning) and then to electricity through an engine cycle that is limited to 35% efficiency or so, but combined-cycle gas turbines can be 60% efficient by making use of mechanical as well as thermal output from the chemical fuel. Batteries typically return over 90% of their charging energy for use. Electric motors are also very efficient, though you'll get some losses with the drivetrain (as you do with an internal combustion engine as well). And regenerative braking is very natural with electric vehicles, so the losses from braking may go away almost completely. So even with coal steam turbine generators as the source you're still getting well over 25% from the initial chemical energy to the energy supplied to move your car (minus drivetrain losses). With internal combustion engines you're lucky to get 20%.
Energy: time to change the picture.
I think what you're seeing is good intentions, but people who don't understand the marketplace and don't really have any kind of R&D money to make any real efficiency breakthroughs.
So these companies all just removing everything from the car. Making a car lighter improves its efficiency, as auto racers have known for 50+ years now. The problem is, the vehicle you end up with is no more practical than a race car either. It becomes a one trick pony.
So over and over you see these companies using two tricks:
Making a vehicle that is so expensive no one would buy it (put $50K worth of Lithium-Ion batteries in it).
Or make a vehicle that is basically a faired-in motorcycle. Basically, remove all storage, space and safety equipment.
Why do they do it? Because when you show a vehicle, no one pays attention. They do something the automakers were all capable of all along, yet is useless, but they can issue a press release and garner attention anyway.
Obviously nothing will come of this, a market which already has shown a tendency to not buy 44mpg Toyota Corollas isn't going to suddently roll over and snap up even smaller cars just because of a few more mpg. But watch those Corolla sales figures, and the Chevy Aveo, and the Honda Civic HX. If you see those take off, the market might be shifting and even smaller and slower vehicles might become marketable.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
GIVE THE CYCLIST THEIR OWN LANE. Anyone who has been to China would notice that in China cyclist has their own lane, protected and FENCED from the car lanes, at least in major streets, so that no car can cross over. Cyclist follow the same rules as cars.
I saw something very similar to this at Disney's EPCOT center in the early eighties. It was built by General Motors over 20 years ago called the Lean Machine! here's a link The same concept: 3 wheeler, pivoting mechanism, etc. No doubt that the drive train was different (gas vs. electric) than the one shown. Not much new under the sun, is there? GM obviously never did anything with the concept that I know of. Interesting comment about it: '...The 'Tilting 3 or 4 wheeler' -- To compensate for lateral stability, the vehicle has some kind of tilting system to enable it to lean into corners like a motorcycle. If the leaning is controlled by the driver, the driver must try to calculate the correct tilting angle when cornering, which can require very sophisticated driving skills -- particularly in difficult or stressful driving situations, e.g. driving on slippery roads or when executing an evasive manoeuvre. This type of vehicle cannot be safely or predictably driven by the average person, which makes it an undesirable vehicle for mass production. Example: General Motors 'Lean Machine'...' here (1997). BMW apparently did something similar. -- IV
http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
Until I can drive an electric/hybrid/wind(flatulence)-powered car that matches my CLK55 AMG in every respect, this is simply not interesting. The technology isn't there yet. I'll check back with ya in 10 years.
As it happens we just bought a Jetta TDI. Fuel prices for regular gas are edging $3 a gallon here for even regular gas. The HIGHEST I've seen diesel is $3.15. The delta between highest diesel and lowest gas price is maybe 30CENTS. In driving during bumper to bumper traffic the car is reporting mileage of 36.5-39MPG. The vehicle it replaced (SUV) averaged 18MPG. The small sports car I drive gets 27MPG and I'm SERIOUSLY considering dumping it for a 2nd Jetta. I'll gain MPG, room, and lose the convertible top - oh well.
:-) I had to laugh at Bush telling people to buy more diesel, I'm sure VW appreciates it.
Even ASSuming that a normal gas powered car is going to get 27MPG the diesel trumps gas in cost per mile in bumper to bumper traffic. Speaking of which, I got an extra 3mpg by leaving early and avoiding traffic which the Jetta driver doesn't do. She was pumping $50 a tank into the SUV twice a week, the new vehicle is going to be alot less painful to fill I predict. A hybrid would've cost more and not done as well on the highway so this makes sense despite the lack of HOV and tax concesions.
Now, move to a highway scenario. The Jetta is supposedly capable of FIFTY MPG at highway speeds although we've yet to test it. Even if it gets high 40s it's going to EASILy trounce most any gas powered car. Hybrids do best in slow traffic and in that arena the TDI competes well but at highway speeds the Hybrids are running their motors and won't do nearly as well.
Some interesting bonus points of interest... Jetta TDI automatic is a computer controlled manual 6speed called a DSG. It gets as good or BETTER mileage than the manual models and doesn't shift like crap. The gas model GTis with the DSG are faster than the manuals for this reason. Despite some pretty anemic HP numbers this car gets up and moves when needed - it apparently outguns our previous SUV according to the driver. I expect it's highway performance to be good. For geeks there's lots of things to tinker with including an optional NAV display, iPOD interface (optional), and a CAN bus that can be manipulated with a laptop and the proper interface (VAG COM).
Now for a kick in the teeth.... VW is apparently the only one selling diesel equipped new cars in the States (hear that Bush?!). 2006's models will be built right to the limit because NONE will be shipped here in model year 2007. Emissions standards on diesels for 2007 are much higher and that's when the low sulphur fuel FINALLY kicks in. In 2008 I expect to see a bunch of diesels sold here from lots of manufacturers. Why we don't have a diesel electric hybrid is beyond me since that's an obviously smart way to go - just ask a locomotive driver
Oh, out the door price on this little puppy with EVERYTHING including tax was $28K. No leather on this one (not cloth though)and no HIDS available, but overall it's plush and we're happy...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Low Emission Cars Continue to Gain Popularity
And some car manufacturers are on the verge of ceasing production or vastly limiting production of hybrids since their sales are incredibly low.
Owning a RWD vehicle in any place that it happens to snow or get cold enough for ice to form has been known to quickly change one's opinion of RWD and "fun". Tried climbing a hill in a RWD? Or worse yet, stopping at a traffic light on a hill and then trying to get moving again? How about pulling out of a driveway into traffic? As soon as the back-end breaks loose (Which it does unless there's an inordinate amount of weight back there, which screws over any kind of climbing power) the vehicle fishtails and at the very least kills any sort of acceleration curve you were trying to achieve.
There's a reason truck owners put 200-500 pounds of weight in the back of their trucks in winter. Adding that much weight will turn a 1.8L into a go-kart. At the very least it will cut the transmission's lifetime down.
... And so it comes to this.
I'm rather familiar with the military HMMWV, as I own a USMC surplus one. The military HMMWV has a heavy steel frame and suspension, but the body is made from light sheet aluminum, with a fiberglass hood. The basic (and most common) models of the HMMWV have no armor at all, and the doors and top are vinyl-covered cloth (when they're even installed). Even many of the armored variants would be torn apart by a landmine or penetrated by direct hits from projectiles, as their armor is mainly intended to protect the occupants from shrapnel, or in the case of the TOW missile carriers from spall from the missile launcher. The hard doors used on some hard-top models with the visible "X" reinforcement are just fiberglass with no armor, and the next level of armor just adds a thin sheet of armor plate riveted on top of that... it'll help against schrapnel or spall, but a rifle bullet will still punch through. On the unarmored HMMWVs, there's nothing between the occupants and a landmine but a light sheet aluminum floor. In fact, it's common for older USMC trucks to have lots of extra holes in the floor to help drain out water after beach landings and so forth, punched in with axes, bayonets, bullets, or whatever else is handy. The floor/body wouldn't stop a stabbing, let alone a landmine!
The civilan Hummer H1 is built on the same chassis and body as the military HMMWV, with a lot of cosmetic stuff slapped on in the interior to make them a bit less uncomfortable to drive. The electrical and fuel systems are different, but most of the rest of the engine/drivetrain is pretty much the same in models with the GM diesel engine (the gasoline-powered models obviously had a different engine). The civilian hard doors have better side-impact protection if I'm not mistaken. It's basically the same as the military truck with most of the same capabilities, and has been prettied up a bit for the civilian market.
The H2 and H3 have nothing in common with the military HMMWV except the "Hummer" name. They're civilian trucks with some cosmetic crap to make them look boxier, meant to be sold to dumb yuppies who can't distinguish between form and function. I spit in their general direction.
Check out this little google vid: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4104261162 559881379&q=smart+car&pl=true
Shows smart car crashing into wall - pretty impressive. Might be slashdotted so ...
Considering that the vast majority of our electricity comes from oil-fueled and coal-fueled generators which burn thousands of pounds/gallons of fuel per hour each, there is a huge power loss due to resistance of the conductors between your house and the generator (not to mention losses in the various transformers along the way) and battery charge cycles are at best 20% efficient, this is NOT a low-emission solution; you are merely displacing the emissions to another location (the NIMBY syndrome), and not only that, you've generated a lot more toxic waste that companies show little interest in recycling (the lithium-ion batteries) which need to be replaced every 50,000 to 75,000 miles.
;)) - and it should be getting even better mileage this summer now that I just had brand-new RC fuel injectors and a Corsa exhaust installed (the nice quiet stock exhaust finally rusted to the point where I can't have it repaired :( An exhaust lasting 179K miles on a '91 car is not bad), replacing the stock GM crap. Not only that, it burns amazingly clean such that one time the techs running the dyno remarked he doesn't usually see economy cars burn that cleanly, let alone a sportscar. But then again, I keep it tuned and have the alignment checked regularly. My business partner's car with a six-cylinder burns dirty and every inspection costs him a few hundred, because he doesn't keep up with maintenance (he changes his oil every other year whether it needs it or not). If you keep your car maintained, run good oil (I run Mobil 1 or Castrol Syntec in my vehicles - I hate ExxonMobil but still buy their synthetic oil, I usually cannot find RedLine oil), and use detergent-based fuel injector cleaners every now and then, your car will run very cleanly. Let maintenance go, run the crappiest, cheapest engine oil you can, you will wear out the engine far more quickly and will have problems with emissions after a few years.
I'll stick with my current car, thank you. It gets better fuel mileage than almost everyone who criticises me for driving a "gas guzzler" (I get 26-27mpg combined, I've gotten 32-33mpg on long trips - when driving like a sane person anyhow, 180mph+ runs on I-70 get crappy mileage
The idea of a hybrid intrigues me, but I'd feel far more guilty about the production costs and toxic waste generated from the battery packs which need to be replaced far too often than I do about driving a conventional car. What would convince me to buy a hybrid is using the hybrid technology in combination with a V8 to enhance performance - there is no reason one can't get 35+mpg normal driving and sub-4.1 second 0-60 times in the same car (obviously you wouldn't get good mileage driving like a bat out of hell). The upcoming Lexus is interesting (and out of my price range right now) but I'd like to see what its specs will be. If the specs are comparable to my car and I can afford it at the time (no way in Hell I can afford it at the moment unless I sell my car which "ain't gonna happen" in my liftime), I might buy it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
As others have mentioned, a RWD car isn't necessary to achieve your goals of wanting "something fun and semi-sporty to drive but practical in terms of initial cost, maintainence, and gas mileage."
Plenty of FWD cars can be made to handle very well (and yes, oversteer!) with a few suspension tweaks. In fact, your Civic is one of most modified FWD platforms in the world and can very easily be made to handle very well pretty inexpensively while getting great gas mileage.
I haven't done the research, but if the new Civic Hybrid and Civic share the same suspension, I suspect that the hybrid would be a good choice if you want to get a car with low emissions and could handle well.
American fuel prices are not high. They are less than half of what we pay in Europe.
1 US gallon is about $6.50 in the UK currently.
Maybe americans would drive more efficient vehicles if their governement were not such a slave to the oil industry.
Within 10 years, expect to see over 25% of US motorists driving diesel vehicles, even if the insane junta of bush and friends manages to cement its brutal regime for another term.
Andrew
this will make for fun driving
Does anybody know how much an air conditioner in an electric car reduces the "mileage"? I never hear proponents of electric cars offer much in terms of real-world conditions. For example, say you're in your energy-efficient electric car on your 40 minute commute on a sunny, humid, 96 F day. What kind of real world dollar and range hit does your AC impose?
Personaly, I often end up using both. When going up this one hill, I'm not going any faster than a fast walker/slow jogger. The speed limit on the road is 40. Most cars do at least 45. I go up on the sidewalk. Coming down, however, I'm doing at least 35 even if I don't pedal, so I'm firmly in the street.
For the most part, if the speed limit is 30 mph, I'm in the street. If traffic is especially heavy, I'll move to the sidewalk. If there's lots of people walking, I'll move to the street. Too many on both? Alternate route.
I don't read AC A human right
It is generally considered a bad idea to focus your attention on anything other than driving while driving, unless absolutely necessary. Bitching at someone about a cell phone is neither helpful or necessary.
You can rationalize all you like, what he did (and her too, no pass there) put a great deal of other people at risk.
They were BOTH wrong, and their immature, irresponsible driving could have cost lives.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
It runs on batteries when no other car is around and has a tractor beam to steal kinetic energy from SUV's when I am on the freeway....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Let me see if my math is right? I can spend $15,000 more on a car that costs $6,000 less in gas. Seems like a good deal to me, if I was stupid with my money.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
can easily ruun my car for 150,000km. So, using a battery car ain't gonna save me nutthin...
Oh well, what the hell...
People are stupid, get over it. Once you comprehend this fact, life is simple and makes a lot of sense. If it's pouring rain, why the FUCK are you even out there? Move to Europe or stop whining. This is America--we drive cars and use gas. As a side note regarding this article--good luck getting consumers in the US to accept cars that have a top speed of 60 mph, who in their right mind would want to PAY for that? ("But Hummers and gas guzzlers don't sell...because they're expensive and corporation-ey...uh, gas is expensive...wait, no, nobody likes driving, it's a chore...well, uh...people don't really like fast cars...ummm, nevermind...") I honk at bikers when I see them in the road in downtown Chicago to remind them that they shoudn't be there. Since when do laws trump common sense? Would you listen to your elected officials over your Mother? Oh wait, probably not, otherwise you wouldn't be biking around in the pouring rain... "Jimmy Democrat says we have the right of way!"
Any vehicle more efficient than a car will probably be smaller than a car, and that smaller vehicle will lose in a collision with a car.
The vehicles that protect you in a collision are those designed with safety in mind; size has little to do with it.
That includes pedestrians in crosswalks. What are you going to do? Stop walking?
For walking, my risk is fairly low: I stick to sidewalks and cross only where the visibility is good and where even an inattentive driver can't hit me. For bicycle and motorcycle riding, I can't avoid risky circumstances to the same degree.
That's a pretty good plan. But you should add in a velocity component. Maybe make the fine correspond to the energy of the potential collision, since the damage roughly corresponds to it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Unfortunately conventional small Diesels are heavy because the market is gensets and marine use where low vibration and low noise are important. The car market really only gets started at 1.4 litres and averages around 1.9, which is far too big. As an example of a high quality small engine, the lovely little turbocharged 32HP Bukh still weighs around 500-600lb all up.
Pining for the fjords
This was on Sunday, the last day of the Maricopa (AZ) County Fair. Also the day of Demolition Derby. I love Demolition Derby, but I wonder if its days are numbered?
You see, for a good demolition derby, you have to have cars that run, and continue running, even after all kinds of crap have happenned to them. To do this, derby drivers typically run RWD vehicles, mostly old Buicks, Caddilacs, and an assortment of old station wagons. I have yet to see a single FWD vehicle in one of these competitions. Why?
Because power and steer are combined in one unit, and that unit is fairly fragile. There are typically two main rules in Demolition Derby: No head-to-head (front) collision impacts (that is, direct head to head - side-front impacts are allowed), and no driver side door impacts. You will actually see drivers avoid this at all costs (you get disqualified). However, because front-side impacts are allowed, and rear to front impacts are allowed, you will see other drivers attempting to "take out the engine" in this manner.
Invariably, this does nothing to the engine (most are welded and chained in place), but some damage does occur to the radiator and such. However, since the engine still supplies power, even if the steering is damaged, the driver can still "drive" the car, if they are good (turns-in-reverse driving, anyone?). Power to the back wheels is unaffected.
Not so in a FWD car - you break the steering on such a thing, and power output is invariably screwed as well, because any side impact that can break the steering will invariably break the axles and CV joints of the FWD vehicle - which breaks the transmission, etc. Maybe the rules will change where no front impacts will be allowed? Do they run demolition derbys in other countries where RWD cars aren't as prevalent anymore? What do they do there?
Nothing was more fun than watching these cars and drivers destroy each other. One car's engine caught fire and couldn't be started again, the driver was out. They brought a water truck by and hosed the fire (and driver) off thoroughly, to put the fire and such out (extinguishers were tried, but the fire was too hot). Even so, at the end of the competition, my wife and I stayed to watch the "clean up" - they eventually got the car started again and drove it out of the arena. It is always amazing to watch the amount of damage a car can inflict (and receive), and still move around (for various degrees of "move").
I just wonder if these demolition derby competitions are going to be things of the past, as there isn't much in the way of RWD vehicles any more (unless they switch to trucks, I suppose). I just wonder if one day it will be no more, or if the rules will change, or what. It isn't for everyone, but I enjoy watching it (and if I had the time and room for a car of my own, I would enter myself)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
SMUG ALERT!
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
..to their riders.
Unlike your basic Ford Excursion, which would probably double quite well as a tank.
Seems to me that if someone wants to take the chance on a motorcycle then that is their perogative, because they are (for the most part) only going to hurt themselves.
That said I am sure there are numerous examples of pedestrians/bystanders/ect killed by motorcycles.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I don't have the numbers currently in front of me, so I'll do my best from memory, but I've done the calculations before.
.7*.6*.75 = 31.5% efficient (on the same order as, but a little better than ICE) It turns out that the amount of polution is roughly the same, but a little less than and ICE as well. The only reason electric cars don't currently make sense, is that the initial extra cost of the battery/charging solution swamps the savings in gas costs. I figured the cost of electricity to power your car is roughly equivalent to $1.25 per gallon of gasoline. $12,000 (this is what a current conversion kit for a Prius costs) amortized over 150,000 miles at 20 mpg add another equivalent of roughly $4 per gallon to the equivalent electric solution. If we could cut that capital investment to $6000, the electric solution would be equivalent to roughly $3 per gallon gas, so at $3 per gallon, I believe it starts making sense to research electric cars. At $5 a gallon, it already makes financial sense (You'll notice they already make economic sense in europe where they are being developed, and they are an economic wash in the United States where they are not being deveoloped as fast.) Look up some of the numbers. They are not that hard to find. It can acutally be quite fun.
An internal combustion engine (ICE) combined with the mechanical transmission is hopelessly inefficient. The ICE is somewhere between 12% and 25% efficient at converting the heat in the gasoline to kinetic energy. The turbines at your typical power plant are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%. With transmission losses somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% (Meaning 60% efficient) and battery efficiency being roughly 75%. This means the overall efficiency is on the order of
> How much will the power cost me?
Not sure about this particular car, but last December I was in a position where I really could have benefitted from an electric car. I searched the nets and found several that would have done well for me except I couldn't afford one yet. The one I liked the most was currently being used for a commute of about 44 miles and being recharged at work during the day. He was reporting a little less than 250 watt-hours per mile. This is from his charge meter to his odometer, so it included all the inefficiencies in the actual car. I pay 6.936 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity at my power sockets, so it would cost me 1.734 cents per mile. For a 300 mile "fillup" that would cost $5.21
Compare that to my current costs for my gasoline car. I get almost 30 miles to the gallon of gasoline. Gasoline here at the cheap places costs $2.57 per gallon. For a 300 mile fillup that costs me $25.70.
You would have to insert your own electric and gasline costs, but at current prices I don't think there is anywhere in the United States that the numbers wouldn't favor the electric substantially.
> How about the transmission line waste?
As I understand it, the transmission line waste is not really a super big issue. That's why we use high voltage lines to transmit power long distances. The bigger loss is by the step-down transformers at the receiving end. Maybe we could get someone who is more of an expert to get better exact numbers, but I understood it was about 10% loss at each transformer. Assuming two transformers (this is really a guess. There could be up to 4 or as little as one, depending...) that's 19% loss.
Compare that with the transmission ineffeciencies of transporting gasoline. How much diesel does it take for a truck to haul 10,000 gallons of gasoline from the refinery to the pump? If he gets 10 miles per gallon and has to haul it 1000 miles, he only gets 1% loss. Again, I'm just guessing on the load size and mileage but it gives me a ball-park figure.
You also have to take into account that the electricity is transported very safely and cheaply. Having extra trucks on the roads and having to pay the drivers to transport the gasoline are additional issues.
Electric cars really are more efficient and cost effecient than their gasoline powered counterparts. The newer electric motors are lighter and more effecient and have a lot more power than even a decade ago. Maintenance is minimal compared to gasoline engines and they last longer if you replace the brushes a couple of times. Battery maintenance is a bit more of an issue and the batteries do wear down over time and need to be replaced or revamped after however many cycles. But these problems are minimal. The real problems are battery cost, range, refueling time and refueling availability. But if this article is correct, they may have solved at least the battery cost and range issues. I could live with the other ones. If I really could get a electric car the size of a Prius for $38,000 that went 300 miles on a 5 hour charge, I'd do it in a minute. Just the gasoline savings on my commute would cover the car payments.
In simple terms you can consider a hybrid to run like a locomotive with battery backup, since locomotives obviously do not have batteries. Look at it from an engineering perspective or a physics perspective and not a butterfly collecting perspective.
You got modded "insightful" for saying that "fun" "definately not what fuel-effecient vehicles need for wide public acceptance right now" without providing any evidence to the contrary, or naming anything that fuel-efficient cars DO need to become widely accepted by the public.
I think adding a little "fun" to the fuel economy would go a long way. A lot longer than the "nothing" you suggested.
I have to admit, the Sprint had the stopping characteristics of an air hockey puck. Fun, though.
Clear, Dark Skies
The OP says the cost is twice that of a gasoline powered car. OK, that means $17,500 of "added" cost.
$17,500 divided by $3 = 5,833.33 gallons of gasoline x 25 mpg = 145,833.33 miles traveled.
If you were to buy one of these with the OP assumptions of price, you'd have to drive almost 150,000 miles before you made a return on the purchase. However, you also have to pay for the electricity to power the thing.
Maybe this would work in a European city where the roads are thousands of years old so you must have a little bitty car and gas costs $12/gallon. It's not going to work in North America where there are much longer distances to drive.
Of course, I live in Japan, which makes all the difference. I can only use my bike BECAUSE there available public transportation in case of rain or extreme temperatures. When I move back to the states next month, I will live the same distance from work, but be forced to drive. If I road my bike, I would get stuck at work with no way home far too often. I have also lived in Europe, and used public transportation. I also used public transporation every day while I was in grad school in the states. Why? Because I happened to be in a large enough city to support it. Europe really has two advantages when it comes to public transporation. First, of course, is the density issue. Just as important, however, is that most major European cities were built BEFORE cars. Therefore, the streets are often too narrow to support them. American cities, in contrast, were generally built POST car, and were designed to handle larger numbers of them. From there, it has simply been an issue of positive feedback.
Motorcycles suffer the same problems as bicycles. They require relatively fair weather (or a tolerence for getting a bit wet and/or sweaty) and are increadibly dangerous relative to cars or public transporation.
The problem is that when we hit "peak oil," gasoline prices will exponentially increase very suddenly, causing extensive economic disruption if we're not sufficiently prepared (i.e. by already having mostly switched to alternative fuels). The free market can't solve this problem because it won't respond until the increase actually happens, and by then it'll be too late because the technologies and infrastructure needed take time to develop.
In other words, the market responds to changes in price (d$/dt) but the government is responding to the rate of change of changes in price (d^2$/dt^2). Also, the government can do better long-term planning than the private sector, because the private sector needs to make profits in the short run. In contrast, the government can operate at a loss (and usually does, unfortunately).
[Note: IANAEconomist]
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I guess you would 'save' in terms of gas, but you would have to drive a whole lot and drive it for a number of years to save overall if the car costs twice as much as a gasoline model.
True,oil or fuel has to be physically delivered, but the delivery system IS very flexible. It can be delivered by oil tanker, pipeline, and tanker trucks. It is delivered on a daily basis to almost every populated spot on the surface of the planet at economical cost.
In contrast, electricity delivery system is actually the one that is not flexible. It requires a fixed infrastructure of transmission lines to be built and maintained to each specific area that needs the electrical energy. This is far more limiting than the distribution of chemical fuels. The most poor and isolated places on earth have people driving gas or diesel powered vehicles, and running gas/diesel generators, but aren't very likely to have fixed electrical utility service!
Also, remember, energy is lost whenever you transform or transmit it. In a car converting the chemical energy of the fuel to mechanical motion incurs large losses, with large scale electrical power generating stations also losing energy, (but tending to be more efficient in this regard) BUT then you need to consider the transmission losses of sending the electricity along the transmission lines to where it is needed. I don't have the figures, but I seem to remember seeing some, and they seemed quite significant. Then you should add in the energy that is lot as the electric car converts the electricity back to mechanical motion.
With a proper calculation of all the energy losses, I strongly suspect that the electric cars may actually waste more energy than gasoline cars.
This has long been the advice for bicyclists. I first heard it from Austin bicyclist Michael Bluejay. It's good advice for anyone on the road. And especially important for cars with turn signals on--I've been a passenger in an accident that occurred because someone had their turn signal on and didn't turn.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
That's because it's already obvious to deaf, blind, dumb chimps EXACTLY what fuel-effecient cars need.
They need to be normal-sized cars, able to seat 4.5 people, trunk-space, powerful enough (or rather, geared well) to accelerate to 75MPH in a reasonably short ammount of time (interstate merging). Other details like not being a deathtrap in an accident. Not being incredibly complex and expensive to buy and maintain. Not being in-danger of being flipped over by a gust of wind while you're driving. etc.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I can tell you are being sincere in your numerous comments on this story, but you are nonetheless making me angry, as I am a bicyclist in the US and lived in Texas for six years, much of that time with no working car. The fact that our cities are laid out in a bicycle-unfriendly manner is something to be ashamed of. Dallas or Houston would be very difficult to navigate by bike, I agree, but you're basically advocating a car-only society, which sickens me. Urban areas are where it makes the most sense to ride a bike, versus the rural areas where there are no shoulders and many miles between neighbors. There is no denying the US is car-centric, but that's something we should be working to change, not accept as a done-deal. We're going to need more trains soon, when the pollution in major US cities is as bad as the Districto Federal in Mexico, where any given car is only allowed to be driven on certain days of the week. (Consequently, rich people in the D.F. get around this rule by owning two cars. Rich and poor both have to occassionally wear surgical masks to avoid breathing so much toxic particulate matter, as will be the case in Houston and LA soon.)
I could ramble for a long time, but the point is this: people are lazy, and that is the reason so few ride bicycles. There is nothing inherent to this nation that prevents people from biking to work or to the grocery store. I've done so on a regular basis, with no difficulty. You could too, if you really wanted to, even in a major urban area.
Telling bicyclists to get off the road if they can't keep up with the cars is irresponsible at best. Where I bike, most of the city street speed limits are no more than 25 mph, which I can easily maintain on my bike. Cars still sometimes try to pass me if I don't take a whole lane, so I take the lane if there isn't a bike lane. The common motto is "share the road," which you sound unwilling to do. Not all bicyclists are lawless idiots, you know. I see far more assholes driving while on their cell phones than I see bicyclists running red lights. Oh, and where I live, the laws state that bicyclists can treat stop signs (signs, not lights) as "yield" signs, so they don't have to come to a complete stop. You might want to check the laws in your area--some of those bicyclists breezing through stop signs may have been within their rights.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
"That's because it's already obvious to deaf, blind, dumb chimps EXACTLY what fuel-effecient cars need."
Well, that being the case, I suppose I should thank you for taking the time to explain it to a higher (and better equipped sensory-organ-wise) life form then.
They could also use a bit of fun-factor. You know, for those of us who don't judge everything strictly by Utilitarian standards.
protect your legs, shoes, and backpack/briefcase. Also, if is hot out (ie, any time from May to September in Japan) you will loathe wearing any clothes at all, let alone a raincoat, even a good "breathable" one. In the winter, you have the opposite problem. Cold is bad, wet and cold is far worse. Couple that with the other problem of it being far hotter in the morning than at night for my regular commute, which makes it necessary to have layered clothing. Because of weather, I can only use my bike about 3-4 days per week. Any way you cut it, you need public transporation to back up your bicycle.
would have done, or much more than the US. Their numbers look better in some cases due to historical accidents and low-population and economic growth. "Hey, we are committing economic and demographic suicide, but are closer to our Kyoto targets than you" is not much of an argument. It actually makes the anti-Kyoto point.
Your first sentence shows the problem. We have no limits. So how does this get enforced? One company takes money to not log a forest or burn fossil fuel, and instead another company does it.
If we had a total cap, and this removed emissions from the cap, I'd be all for it. The EPA has pollution trading like this. You can buy emissions on that market and then never emit them, that reduces emissions.
But there is no overall EPA cap on CO2, and so I don't see how this can be effective.
I don't believe in no-till farming as a CO2 reducing method, BTW. As a soil erosion thing, great. For lots of reasons, great. But I don't think that that CO2 fixed in the soil will actually stay long-term. Once the concentration gets high enough, it'll seep out some other way.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
> Li in any shape or form is toxic noxious substance
So is lead, but people don't have a problem with that in batteries. Nor do people have a problem successfully recycling it.
Basically, you're just spreading FUD:
"Our initial conclusion is that lead is the worst [environmentally], nickel is next, and lithium is the least harmful [for batteries]"
The car is very safe, but firefighters and EMTs were asking Toyota and Honda for the information and both companies took a while to get the information back to them. In the vacuum of any information about the cars and any official statements, EMTs and FFs were advised to use extreme caution. First responder procedures were clearly an afterthought- or one Toyota and Honda intentionally tried to avoid for liability reasons (ie they recommend a procedure, a FF uses it and is killed, family sues, blah blah.)
Please help metamoderate.
*(Specifically, a completely electric drivetrain is very quiet, which would make this car an appealing luxury car.)
No, I will not work for your startup
I don't accept your assertion that the government can do better long term planning. Mostly I see politicians that can only see as far as the next election. This is in contrast to the company I work at that consistently is looking 5 years ahead.
On the contrary -- you just proved my point. Five years ahead is not long term; in fact, it's not even medium term. Long term is more like 20-50 years (and the government does fund pure theoretical research, which is the kind that will have returns in that timeframe).
In fact, our modern society's idea of long-term planning is still extremely myopic compared to that of societies earlier in history. For example, some of the large medieval cathedrals in Europe took hundreds of years to build.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
99% of the population doesn't care how much fun it is to do doughnuts in, when they're paying $30,000 to buy it.
That's where the "widely" part comes in. Fuel effecient cars don't need to play to your own particular niche, and it's moronic to say that they should.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Why should anyone donate their personal money to a private, for profit, trillion dollar industry as if power companies were some kind of charity? What are they going to do with these donations as they come in, until they have enough money to start upgrading their plants? This is even more asinine than public financing for stadiums for billion dollar professional sports teams, because at least the city can use the arena for other purposes.
If the industry wants to do "carbon credits", they can pay us money. If Xcel figures that upgrading their power plants will cost $200 million, but $150 million to subsidize hybrid vehicles will reduce pollution to the same degree, then they can cover the difference between a traditional vehicle and a hybrid for the consumer until they hit that $150 mil.
Just hope that power producers invest in clean technology on their own. This doesn't work because there's no financial incentive; polluting companies will undercut the prices of clean companies, and the clean companies will go out of business.
Regulation.
Regulate: tell all the power companies that they must adhere to certain emission cleanliness standards. This works to a point, but basically ensures that no companies will work to beat the standard (see point 1).
Point 1 wont work because it is incredibly stupid. People are uptight in this country about paying taxes for services that benefit them directly, and you think they'll start writing out checks to private industry because power companies are too lazy to take action on their own?