Slashdot Mirror
Hybrid Cars No Better than 'Intelligent' Cars
eldavojohn writes "There's no doubt been a lot of analysis done recently on energy consumption, especially on the road. Now, a study released today reveals that cars with traffic flow sensors built into them can perform just as efficiently as hybrids. The concept of an 'intelligent' car that communicates with the highway or other cars is an old idea, but the idea of them using sensors to anticipate braking could vastly reduce fossil fuel consumption. From the article, 'Under the US and European cycles, hybrid-matching fuel economy was reached with a look-ahead predictability of less than 60 seconds. If the predictability was boosted to 180 seconds, the newly-intelligent car was 33 percent more fuel-efficient than when it was unconverted.' Now, the real question will be whether or not you can convince consumers that the three minutes of coasting up to a red light or halted traffic is worth the 33 percent less gas and replacing your brake pads/cylinders less often."
But what aboout Hybrid Itelligent Cars being beter then Intelligent cars?
the two techs could easily be put together in the same car, and make something much more efficient.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
What we really need are intelligent drivers. You know, the ones that don't drive 20 over the speed limit, don't tailgate, keep their cars in tune and the tires properly filled.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
From the tone of the post, it seems like they're making an argument against hybrid cars by showing that they're no more efficient than regular cars with this new tech... but why not just stop comparing the two and combine them? Shouldn't the title read "Hybrid Car Efficiency Improves Even More with new Technology?"
You don't need sophisticated sensors for this; in most situations, your vision alone is enough to give you 60 seconds of forewarning, or close to it, if you choose to drive "intelligently."
... the capability for "intelligence" is there, but people choose not to do it.
However, most people don't. They'll accelerate when they know there's a red light or stopped traffic in front of them, even though it just means they need to brake harder (and probably come to a complete stop, which they might have avoided by slowing down sooner); people follow too closely on highways and have to use their brakes, which really shouldn't be used for anything except emergencies (and the flashing of which screws up traffic behind them, because people think there's a problem); people mash down on the gas when they're just going to have to stop again in another 100 feet
Perhaps when gas costs more, people will choose to drive more efficiently.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Can't we just teach people to turn off the water while they shave or brush their teeth to conserve water? Can't we just teach people to set their thermostats a couple of degrees higher in the summer and lower in the winter to save electricity and gas? Can't we just teach people to take colder showers? Or turn off the lights when they leave a room?
Yes, teaching people better habits is a nice thing to do, but getting them to actually drop their old bad habits is an entirely different story. Our oil problems would be greatly solved if everyone stopped driving their cars and started riding bicycles for any trip less than, say, 5 miles long, but that isn't likely to happen. We must solve these problems through technology because making other people change their lifestyle is just not practical. Most people will resist, and even those who don't are likely to go back to their old ways because people are inherently lazy and will take the path of least resistance whenever possible.
First, the technologies aren't incompatible, competing technologies.
Second, the negative spin on hybrids is bizarre: that they—a widely available commercial technology—are "no better" than the tests suggest a proof-of-concept, not-yet-commercially-available technology might be if put into practical use is, well, a weird way of looking at things.
I mean, usually, that a presently available technology does just as well, with less specialized infrastructure, than a proof-of-concept isn't, even if they are directly competing, bad news for the existing technology, its bad news for the experimental alternative. "New, unproven technology offers no more than existing, popular technology" would be the usual way of looking at that.
Of course, they aren't competing technologies, there is no reason a hybrid couldn't benefit from being "intelligent" or vice-versa. Now, you might not get the full efficiency gains of each, since there is some overlap in their benefits vs. dumb non-hybrids, but you would expect more efficiency than either alone.
Well, except that I can actually buy a wool coat.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
"Our oil problems would be greatly solved if everyone stopped driving their cars and started riding bicycles for any trip less than, say, 5 miles long, but that isn't likely to happen."
I think that would solve a whole lot more than just the oil problems..
MABASPLOOM!
Then we simply need to make the path of least resistance also the most efficient. Any system designer will tell you that you need to make the best choice the default one, because people will overwhelmingly choose the default.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I'd say 3 miles is a bit extreme, but I have done quarter-mile coasts. Anyway, that's what the happy medium's for.
I go 65-70 on So. Cal freeways. Period. I also manage to keep a healthy 3 second window most of the time. I rarely brake. There are days I could make it from home to work without hitting the brake once (well, if it wasn't for red lights, right turns and parking).
They have room to pass me, and I give them all the room they want. I guess what it all boils down to is I'm comfortable with the size of my penis.
That's the thing, it's not new, it's not expensive, it certainly would help, so why isn't a bill passed requiring all new cars to display mpg statistics? My father's early 90s chrysler had this. You could get current usage, trip usage, and overall life of the car usage. All displayed on a nice little digital readout next to the odometer. I think that at least for some percentage of the population it would ease their driving habits. It almost becomes a game to try to milk that last mpg out. I think this was available for my Jeep, but it came with the special upgrade package that includes the special control panel with the nice sun glass holders in it. Of course it was like $400 to I opted out of it. Just like a catalytic converter, a fuel usage display should be mandated. It's cheap and has potential. Of course the car manufactures don't want it because then people would see how bogus their epa ratings really are.
Human beings consume resources up to the limit of what is available unless they have to pay for it. Well we consume huge amounts of energy because it's cheaper than it has been ever before in history. If energy was expensive people would be very careful about how they used it, including buying more energy efficient devices.
Deleted
Believe me, I've tried.
I often find myself in a half-mile back up of cars at a stop sign. I'm in a rural area that's quickly being developed and adequate traffic control devices (IOW, stop lights) haven't been installed everywhere. It's obvious as all hell that a perfectly reasonable way to get to the intersection is to just idle along. A gap will open in front of me then I'll idle through it. Before I get to the car in front of me, it will have again opened a gap and then stopped while I just idle smoothly along.
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, apparently not. I've had drivers behind me go into apoplectic fits, screaming and flipping me off, because I allowed a half-dozen car lengths to open ahead of me. I've had drivers pass me on the shoulder where there is no shoulder (I literally mean a two lane road with big, scary ditches on the sides) because they couldn't stand to see a gap in front of me. I've had drivers pull out of line, swerve in front of me, then watch their mirror as I idled up from behind and slam on the brakes as I approached, attempting to cause an accident that would be my fault. I hate to ascribe motives to people I don't know, but that seems to me to be just an attempt to "get" me for not driving like everybody else.
Hell, I've actually been stopped in a long line at a red light and had this happen. I was taught that you should stop far enough behind the car in front to see their rear tires on the ground. If they stall out, this gives you enough room to go around. Well, given the right combination of hood and bumper heights, this can also leave enough room in front to fit a small car. On three separate occasions over the past couple of years, I've had the car behind me whip out and pull in front of me (never *quite* fitting into the space) because I left too much room in front of me while we were ALL stopped at a light.
Nope, you can't drive steady in the U.S. It's apparently not allowed. You must floor the gas, roar up twenty feet, and slam on the brakes to stop every time someone in line in front of you clears the stop sign.
People are idiots. No wonder researchers tend to look for technological solutions to human problems.
I do the same thing, but you have to pay attention to the situation behind you. Coasting to a red light means you're blocking the guy behind you, who may either be making a right on red but has to wait for you to get out of his way, or needs to get to the left turn lane to get the protected left before it changes. If there's someone following me and there's no one ahead turning, I just go ahead and waste the gas, for civilization's sake.
This regenerative braking technology is why hybrids get better gas mileage in stop-and-go city driving than on the highway.
Half true, or perhaps one third. Hybrids also get better gas mileage because when stopped in stop-and-go city driving they use no fuel. That's a huge gain. Also, energy capture during regenerative braking is imperfect both because it is easy to exceed the maximum charging rate of the batteries, and also because the charge/discharge cycle is not all that efficient (about 70% both ways, if memory serves.)
In any case, things that exist are better than things that do not. Hybrids actually exist. I can't tell from the article if the intelligent technology being talked about is anything other than a simulation. But I am sure I can't go down to my local car dealer and buy a car so equipped, whereas I can certainly buy a hybrid.
Finally, the only reason the story sets up a false and misleading opposition between hybrids and intelligent driving choices (whether human or automated) is that lies of this kind get more eyeballs on the page and sell more advertising, and who wouldn't want to get their knowledge about the future of technology from such a pristine and unsullied source?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.