Slashdot Mirror
Early Contenders for the Automotive X-Prize
longacre writes "With the official entry period for the $10 million Automotive X-Prize contest just around the corner, Popular Mechanics offers a preview of the most promising entries. Among the 100-mpg vehicles that Detroit (and Japan) have claimed impossible to build comes a hybrid designed by a class of inner-city high school students in West Philadelphia. Also displayed is a futuristic-looking electric model with a range of 300 miles. We discussed the beginning of this contest earlier this year."
How about a xxx prize ? That's were the money is.
BOOBS!
> Among the 100-mpg vehicles that Detroit (and Japan) have claimed impossible to build...
I know it is fun to rip on 'evil' corporations and all, but there is a bit of difference between some glorified go-cart some kids cobble together and what will pass the Dept of Transportation crash tests. Detroit and Tokyo live in the world where trial lawyers will rip ya a fresh asshole if a jury can be convinced your design wasn't 'perfectly safe.'
Democrat delenda est
I'm cheering for Aptera not just because I'm in line to buy one (indirectly, through a California intermediary), but because technologically, they really deserve it. A drag coefficient of only 0.11 (Prius=0.26), combined with a low cross-sectional area -- i.e., they let physics dictate the shape. Speaking of the shape, it's an inverted wing, so more downforce the faster it goes. That, combined with a wide (~7 foot) front wheelbase and low-mounted batteries for a low CG, lead to strong stability against rollovers. The design is a tadpole trike for stability, weight reduction, and drag reduction. Long 45" crumple/deflection zone, in-seatbelt airbags, with roof and door crush strengths double the NTSB standard. Composite construction for light weight and safety (stronger than steel). Lithium phosphate batteries, which should last the life of the vehicle. The ridiculously low drag and rather light weight approach allows them to use only 10kWh of batteries, meaning faster charges, charges on only wall current, lower potential maintenance/repair costs, and a whole host of other benefits (uses only 80Wh/mi @ 55mph, 140Wh/mi @ 85mph). I could go on for hours; it's an impressive piece of work. I'm simply not as impressed by the other contenders.
Oh, and they recently brought on the head of production for the Ford GT, Dodge Viper, and half a dozen other high end cars to head up their manufacturing. First cars go out the door this December; mine should be late next summer. Can't wait!
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
The bicycle.
...high school students in West Philadelphia In west Philadelphia born and raisedOn the playground where I spent most of my days Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
When a couple of guys said were up to no good
Started making trouble in my neighborhood
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
And said you're moving in with your aunte and uncle in bel-air
100 MPG is highly deceptive when the vehicle is a plug-in hybrid. Much of the power would not come from the fuel, so 100 MPG would only be applicable on short trips. Unless that number does in fact come from non-plug-in testing. I mean sure it is still more practical than an all electric car, as the internal combustion engine eliminates the range limit, but what about the use of Lithium Ion batteries? Is that safe? My understanding is that these batteries can explode under certain circumstances. Might not an automobile accident be sufficient to cause such an explosion?
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
The party enters you!
What do ya think you will do with that car? This is the question I have for most of these exotic vehicles.
Based on their own numbers you get a 120 mile distance to dead so you wouldn't want to get more than forty or fifty miles afrom home and that is going to be with the climate control off. From their webpage it looks like you can get a hybrid drive as an option but they don't have any details as to how much cargo space you sacrifice for the gas engine/generator.
Do the math. A basic el cheapo econobox will set you back less than half the (almost certain to increase when they finally get ready to ship) prelim pricetag on this plastic car and that will buy a LOT of gas, even it it hits $5/gallon. Unless you are planning on putting a lot of miles on it (and unless you are going for the hybrid option you can't) you are better off with a regular vehicle. Or just go buy a Harley.
Lets run the numbers. Assume a commute that runs 35 miles, 70 both ways. On a good econobox you can get 35mpg so it works out to two gallons per day or assuming gas hits $5/gal you pay $10/day for gas. Average of about twenty work days per month and ya get $200 for gas to commute. Now compute the difference in the monthly note for the econobox and the savings on the light bill from not plugging in every night and gulping down a few KWH (remember it takes more than 10KWH to charge a 10KWH battery) and it's probably a wash. If your commute is less the economics get worse pretty fast.
Democrat delenda est
Some of these guys are claiming "they invented" some of the technologies involved here. I do not see any new tech here. I DO see novel uses of existing technolgies, but that is about it. I might have missed something.
Give you an example. The Fuel Vapor "Ale'". Essentially, the idea is to introduce a "dry" gas consisting of air and evaporated gasoline into the engine, rather then a mixture of fuel droplets and air.
Back in the 1960's, a couple of drag racers(cannot, for the life of me, remember both the names. One was Moody) managed to get 80mpg from a STOCK Chevy 350. How did they do it? They simple stacked non-fuel introducing venturis underneath the remote-mounted carburator. The constant shift from a low to a high-pressure area broke up the fuel droplets allowing them to "evaporate" before entering the engine. What it did was allow for COMPLETE combustion of the fuel. I did the same thing on my 1961 Falcon Ranchero using the existing PCV plate under the carb(only ONE additional venturi), rejetted and went from 26mpg to 35mpg. In addition, that 1961 Ranchero burned cleaner then the 1992 Honda Civic that I 5-gas tested at the same time I tested my old Ford. A LOT cleaner, with no catalytic converter.
Why have you never heard of this? Because once they proved it worked, Standard Oil offered them a HUGE amount of money for the patent (they still hold it) and promptly shelved the entire idea. To sell you more oil......
Anyways, my point here is not to detract from the goals of these people, but to point out that a lot of this technology ALREADY exists, and credit should be given where due.
[quote]What do ya think you will do with that car? This is the question I have for most of these exotic vehicles.[/quote]
:)
:) Let's *actually* run the numbers.
Commite, shop, and all of the stuff I normally do with a car except for long trips**. Duh.
[quote]Based on their own numbers you get a 120 mile distance to dead so you wouldn't want to get more than forty or fifty miles afrom home[/quote]
Depends on whether there's merely a normal household power socket on the other end, but let's go with that. So?
[quote]and that is going to be with the climate control off.[/quote]
Small car, efficient heat pump, solar-powered climate assist. Sure, it'll impact range, but probably not as much as you're picturing. Also, there's no initial cooling load, as it has a solar-powered vent fan that keeps the car just above ambient temperature when you're not in it and it's out in the sun.
[quoteFrom their webpage it looks like you can get a hybrid drive as an option but they don't have any details as to how much cargo space you sacrifice for the gas engine/generator.[/quote]
None. The generator displaces 2/3rds of the batteries; it has a shorter electric range, but the 5-gallon gas tank gives it a range of 600-700 miles.
The Aptera has 15.9 cubic feet of cargo space.
[quote]Lets run the numbers. Assume a commute that runs 35 miles, 70 both ways. On a good econobox you can get 35mpg so it works out to two gallons per day or assuming gas hits $5/gal you pay $10/day for gas. Average of about twenty work days per month and ya get $200 for gas to commute. Now compute the difference in the monthly note for the econobox and the savings on the light bill from not plugging in every night and gulping down a few KWH (remember it takes more than 10KWH to charge a 10KWH battery) and it's probably a wash. If your commute is less the economics get worse pretty fast.[/quote]
I find it funny that you said "let's run the numbers" and then didn't actually run the numbers. That's pretty amusing.
Econobox: $13k, +$2k in taxes, -0k deductions.
Aptera: $27k, +3k in taxes, and let's assume that deductions roughly cancel out taxes (could be a lot more, but let's be pessimistic).
Price difference: $14k
$10/day = $3650/year
Aptera goes 120mi on 10kWh = 80Wh/mi (0.08kWh/mi). Charging is usually ~93% efficient, but let's be pessimstic and say that it raises power consumption to 0.09kWh/mi. I pay $0.05/kWh, but the average in the US is more like $0.10/kWh, so let's go with that. That's 4/5th of a cent per mile. * 70 miles, * 365.24 days, that's $230/year.
Net savings: $3420/year. Time to pay off the difference: 4 years.
See what happens when you *actually* do the math? Electricity is dirt cheap, and the Aptera uses very little of it.
There's also maintenance, but when you consider that a good lithium phosphate pack should last the life of the car, and even if you had to replace it, by the time you had to replace it, LiP should cost under $0.20/kWh, you're only looking at a couple thousand dollars thanks to the small pack size (thanks to the efficiency). I.e., it'd cost far less than you save by eliminating 90% of the moving parts in the drivetrain compared to a normal gasoline car. It doesn't even have a transmission, let alone all of the breakable parts of an ICE. So the payback time is even sooner.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Good points, and don't forget the upcoming turbodiesel hybrid/econoboxes with ~50 mpg figures!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Looking at the past 10 or so stories, comments aren't percolating to the top (or sinking to the bottom) at anything near the normal rate.
Sent from my iPhone
Blah, forgot to use italics tags rather than [quote]s. Also, forgot to fill out my "**":
** -- Actually, if they do offer more charging options, or if I can get that aftermarket, I *may well* take it on long trips. We already have infrastructure: RV parks, which can usually be found every 20-50 miles, and are found in even the most remote locations. Sure, fast chargers would be better (lithium phosphate batteries can take a charge in 5-10 minutes if sufficiently cooled, if needed), but RV parks should be good enough. The 50A RV outlets are split phase, 120/240V (sort of like what comes into your house) -- there are two 50A 120V circuits sharing a common neutral. Assuming 117V actual per circuit, that's 11.7kWh. Times 93% charging efficiency, 10.881kWh. That should charge an Aptera from dead to full in around an hour (not sure how much the pack will need to slow once it gets nearly full, but LiP should be good about that). So, that's 2 hours of driving for every one hour of charging. Sure, not as good as for as gasoline car, but as far as stopgaps go, not bad at all. I certainly have no problem spending time relaxing in some wooded area with vacationers and children, perhaps a pool or areas to hike, where I could eat lunch to the sound of chirping birds, and whatnot.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
There are reasons that the Aptera has three wheels and not four, and they are entirely regulatory and not technical. Part of that is just the red tape required to prove that the car meets the requirements, but not even Aptera claims that they meet or exceed all the government requirements for passenger vehicles, just the ones they considered most important for safety.
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile, according to the legal definition of automobile. Not that it matters to me at all whether the vehicle I buy is technically classified as an automobile or not.
That 'practical' may not be... I'm under the impression *most* passenger vehicles carry 1 to 2 people for most of their journeys. I'll try hunt down that to being evidence; my own anecdotes as a taxi driver suggests that most trips carry a maximum of 3 people or jump to 6 or more (I drive a 10 seater vehicle). Most of my jobs are for single person jobs and watching the cars around me I'd hazard that that is true for private vehicles as well. (Y'get a feel for it after you've been doing it a while -- which can be wrong.) The exceptions are families going to school, and south east asian residents visting Australia.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Wired had a really great article on some of the entrants a few months back.
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-01/ff_100mpg
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
There are decades of high-mileage cars. You just have to ask Exxon, Shell, etc. pretty please for all the plans they bought to keep 'em off the market. :->
Seriously, I remember reading about several such contenders in magazines such as, well, Popular Mechanics, and they never materialize.
In fact, what's with mileage going DOWN over the last 15 years? Why do I have to buy a hybrid to get a 35MPG Altima, when I owned a 6-cylinder '95 Intrepid with a 3.5L V6 just a few years ago that got a measly 35MPG when I drove with a lead foot? Who do they think they're fooling?
People, you may be mad about the price of gas, but you should be a lot madder.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Using diesel will gain you a bit of efficiency, but remember that diesel is a denser fuel which takes more crude to produce. And already, there is trouble with the refiners trying to keep up with demand. So diesel costs more than gasoline (16% currently), and probably will in the long term - especially as cars begin to use diesel for the useless "MPG" marketing comparison.
Obviously, there is some benefit to using diesel or the truckers wouldn't all be running around with it - but it's not as big a jump as the MPG figure would imply.
I'm deeply skeptical of diesel hybrids, because the efficiency difference between a diesel and gasoline engine mostly vanishes as you approach full-throttle and the throttle plate is no longer restricting the air. Hybrids are going to tend to run the gasoline engine close to its peak efficiency or not at all.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Firefly Energy's new advanced Lead-acid battery is suitable for use in Hybrids. Energy capacity of NiMH, without the nickel and a fraction of the lead. The key innovation is replacing the lead plates with carbon foam.
As neat as hybrid/electric cars are, they don't do much to solve the energy dilema, because there are already hundreds of millions of hydrocarbon burners on the road today - 200+ million in the United States alone. Tom Kasmer's Hydristor offers an intriguing potential to retrofit the entire fleet for a few thousand dollars apiece.
As I understand it, the Hydristor is basically a infinitely-variable hydraulic transmission that stores energy in a pressurized oil tank. When the operator wants to accelerate, this stored pressure is drawn down to spin the wheels. In the retrofit configuration, the car's transmission is gutted and the Hydristor replaces the torque converter.
More info on the Wikipedia... Most interesting, to me, is the potential to increase the efficiency of the geothermal heat pump. Tom Kasmer has posted on a continuously variable transmission yahoo! group - check there for more technical details.
(p.s. third time I've written this post - lost the last two versions trying to log in the middle of typing. Whoops! The dynamic login feature needs fixing, methinks - first time I hit 'login' at the top, and the second time I used the 'options' button below which gave me the login dialog.
Version #2 was the best of the three...)
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Exactly. And I see families with children where all of their vehicles are big, under the excuse that the kids need to fit. *In each vehicle?* So those members of the family that work end up commuting every day in a big, mostly empty vehicle. It'd make a lot more sense to have one be a comfortable, small, efficient commuter car and another be big enough to haul around the whole flock.
I have no problem with people having big cars to carry around their families. What I do have a problem with is people who have big cars that they drive almost exclusively with just one or two people in them. Very wasteful indeed.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Sadly 40% of all trips made by car are less that 2 miles, i.e. 10mins by bike. So really all this money, time, energy, and man power is put towards solving only 60% of the problem.
Anyways, go to google maps, right-click on where you live and select "Directions from here" then right-click on where you work and select "Directions to here". If the result is less than 5mi, you should be biking to work.
Help the planet, help the country, help yourself, ride a bike.
http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/why/environment.php
I assumed anyone at slashdot could take the math the rest of the way and apply it to their situation but apparently you need some help with yer figuring.
Lets use your figure of $15K for an econobox. We will leave out interest (hell, everybody is doing zero interest financing every other week anyway....) to keep the numbers simple. Besides, it doesn't make much difference because it hits both sides about equally. And we are ignoring insurance, and not putting numbers on maintaince, etc.
So lets do the 60 month deal and pay $250/month plus $200 a month for gas. Total cost is $450/month to commute in an econobox.
Now the electric will run about $26.5K, or $441/month plus $20/month for electricity . If you go for the hybrid version you are looking at $500 + electricity AND gas.... probably between $520 and $560 per month. You won't know for sure until you actually drive it a few months. And no you won't be getting anywhere the stated mpg, those are always a lie (marketing 'facts' if you don't like the word lie) on hybrids.
On a 48 month note the math gets worse at $512 vs $562 electric or $645-$685 for hybrid. And remember that a small difference in the assumptions will make a big difference in the math. Make it thirty miles to work instead of thirty-five and the gap opens up about $28/month. Gas at $4/gal instead of $5 rips open a $40/month gap.
On the plus side the electric car has 'kewl factor' in it's favor up against insane cost to repair as a negative because exotic always equals expensive when you roll into a garage. Being an untested design you can forget those dreams of saving on maintaince. You probably shouldn't count on a long service life either, whereas you can consult consumer reports when buying an econobox and buy one that will have a good chance of having a service life longer than the notes and/or extended warranty.
Democrat delenda est
That's nice but what about the rest of us who need to commute to suburbs?
:)
Should've known better than to live in a place that requires that kind of commute eh? Well I hope the city dwellers know better than not to build city walls
In fact, what's with mileage going DOWN over the last 15 years?
Look at the horsepower. Given the same engine size and roughly the same fuel, for the most part,additional efficiency has been applied to produce more horsepower to the engine. In the 1980s and even into the 1990s, fuel efficient cars were so utterly anemic that the best thing to do to get any kind of performance would be to buy a truck or a 1970s muscle car.
No more.
Nowadays, you've got 4 cylinder engines supercharged up to 300hp, and GM's new V6 in the Caddy CTS is a naturally aspirated 6 that makes the same horsepower as the V8. If you want a V8, you are usually talking at least 350 hp to start, going all the way up to 500 or even close to 600 hp once you put a blower on it.
Just look at the 0-60 times. First 7 seconds was good for a stock car, then 6, and now mid 5's are common. A supercar gets you to the speed limit in 3 seconds.
Speed sells. People like to go fast and accelerate quickly, and that is what car makers made.
Most people aren't mad about the price of gasoline, except in a bitter sense, because they intuitively know that Detroit didn't victimize them - 35mpg cars have been there all along, and they know it wasn't some crazy oil conspiracy. Rather, they know it was their own dumb fault for buying a gas guzzling vehicle when we should have learned having been burnt by this first in 1973, then 1979, and certainly we would be burned again.
The thing is, yeah, the price of gas sucks. But everyone knows that the pandering by all of the candidates is not the real solution. I mean, sure , idiots can rise up like Obama blaming the "oil companies", or almost as nearly as bad, McCain trying to get the gas tax repealed, but, if you ask most people if they would rather have just drilled the shit out of the country to get every last drop of oil, turned Colorado into looking like the moon in order to get all the shale, many, shockingly, (and I would almost say foolishly) would rather preserve the environment. I guarantee you, if you really wanted to lower the price of fuel, you could put in the right environmental waivers and tax breaks, blow off global warming, and we'd be back to about $2/gallon gasoline within 3 years.
Really, most Americans intuitively know that they need to get out of their low mileage vehicles, and get higher mileage vehicles, if they are so pissed off about fuel. For some, its the environment and concerns over global warming. For some, cars aren't mystical beautiful things, just transportation and they'll consider the train. For some, its a racial hatred of arabs and a political hatred of chavez. So really, no matter how you arrive at it, a bit of conservation either saves the planet, screws the arabs, and saves some money, so, really, it's all good.
This isn't stuff we didn't know about before, but we know that now is the time to get on it.
This is my sig.
... What's the patent number?
Any patent granted during the 60's has long since expired.
I call B.S.
Okay, got some links that suggest passenger occupancy rate is ~1.13
Fairly indicative of a misuse of vehicles. I'd doubt that they adjusted for tradesmen vehicles that only carry 2 people like the venerated ute and the like, but even with them being included, I'd hazard that the occupancy would not rise far past 2 people/vehicle.
As for being ugly, the main problem for the masses, isn't that it is ugly but that it is outside conventional expectation. I certainly don't think it is ugly, but my reaction was that it was impractical. Having thought a bit about my own use for vehicles, I'd say it is not truly impractical for me... but I can't help think that it would be. The vehicles that fit into the suv categories are almost always ugly, but fit into convention. Heck, most vehicles are effectively oblongs stacked together! That ain't pritty! The appeal is in the impression that they can be versitile as the boxes that inspired (heh) them. The second metric of beauty would be flowing lines, I reckon, which complements symetry.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
I could be completely wrong here, but apart from the OLPC, LiP cells have never entered into commercial use, and not very much is known about their longetivity, or how well the economics of scale will apply to their production if/when they become popular.
Assuming that LiP cells share the same time durability as "traditional" LiCoO2 cells, 24 months seems like a better timeframe.
Similarly, although potentially not a big deal for you, the lack of storage space could be a big issue to some people, as the "econoboxes" tend to offer a fairly decent amount of cargo space (and at least 4 seats). Most of the "cheap" manufacturers are also attempting to woo customers by offering extensive warranties on their vehicles.
Used cars are also another option. A nice used vehicle can be had for under $10,000, which causes them to win virtually every cost-benefit analysis you can think of, even when considering the reduced lifespan and lower gas mileage.
The Aptera also doesn't look particularly safe. In fact, I'd be hesitant to go anywhere near a highway in one. It looks about as safe as a motorcycle (eg. not at all).
Non-traditionally-designed vehicles are pretty sweet, and I'd encourage their development. However, the first few generations (at least) aren't going to be at all economical.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
You live further than 50 miles or so away from work *and* there is no way for you to connect to a normal household power outlet there, *and* the business wouldn't be amenable to installing an outlet, *and* the city won't either? In this situation which applies to just a couple percent of American commuters, get a PHEV or wait for the next gen of batteries.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Except, car ownership is increasing, family sizes are decreasing(at least in western cultures -- and they are putting pressure on the rest of the world to do the same). They are buying cars for every occassion except effectiveness anyway; people are moving closer to schools despite still driving them those 2 - 5 blocks (Australian experience warning), and public buses are being run empty. I have no problem with people buy the most practical for their families purposes, but having 3 prestige vehicles needs to be peer pressured out of existence. Admittedly, owning a 100mpg vehicle could be simply that.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
I should add that you are correct that it doesn't fit the rules. Can't argue with that.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Among the 100-mpg vehicles that Detroit (and Japan) have claimed impossible to build comes a hybrid designed by a class of inner-city high school students in West Philadelphia
Detroit and Japan never said it was impossible to build these sorts of cars. They just said it was impossible to build these cars for 250k. Seriously, there's no secret conspiracy between Detroit and Japan and the oil companies. If Ford or GM or Toyota could invent a car that ran on air (ala Ayn Rand's Gault-mobile), then, they would invent. Every motor company has researched just about every sort of way you can put people from point A to point B in a car... Chrysler has worked on gas turbine engines... Japan has gone crazy with turbo and superchargers and Mazda has the rotary engine, and GM tried diesel once and even once upon a time Ford actually looked at putting a small nuclear reactor in a car. It just turns out that, that hydrogen carbon bond is a pretty good way of storing chemical energy, and the most efficient way of carrying those bonds is in something like, well, a gasoline.
This is my sig.
I could be completely wrong here, but apart from the OLPC, LiP cells have never entered into commercial use, and not very much is known about their longetivity, or how well the economics of scale will apply to their production if/when they become popular.
LiP cells have entered wide use in power tools, and are taking increasing roles in RC airplanes, RC helicopters, robotics, and other tasks. A BEV will stress the cells a lot less than any of the above things. Automotive uses for LiP are relatively new -- none mass produced yet, and ones built in limited quantities have only been on the road for a few years
Assuming that LiP cells share the same time durability as "traditional" LiCoO2 cells, 24 months seems like a better timeframe.
That's just the point of them -- that they *don't* share the durability of LiCoO2 cells. That's the primary reason that they get rid of the LiCoO2 cathode and replace it with a more stable one that has lower energy density. LiP is to LiCoO2 as nickel-iron was to lead-acid at the turn of the century (nickel-iron "Edison cells" being what powered the Detroit Electrics -- Jay Leno's 1909 electric car still runs on its original nickel-iron cells).
Batteries do not fundamentally have to have short lifespans; it all depends on the particular chemistry. A123 expects their cells in the volt to be good for 7000+ charge cycles. LG chem expects 40 years out of their spinel cells. And a BEV stresses its batteries less than a PHEV like the Volt.
Similarly, although potentially not a big deal for you, the lack of storage space could be a big issue to some people, as the "econoboxes" tend to offer a fairly decent amount of cargo space (and at least 4 seats).
The Aptera has 15.9 cubic feet of cargo space. That's not small. It's also "long", which will help for carrying awkward-shaped items, and has a big hatch to make getting to them easier.
Used cars are also another option. A nice used vehicle can be had for under $10,000, which causes them to win virtually every cost-benefit analysis you can think of
If you put $2-3k in gasoline costs on a vehicle every year, it's hard to come up with a comparison where a 10k vehicle wins for more than a few years. Even a free vehicle will lose in under a decade's time. And this assumes that the cheapo vehicle lasts for that long in comparison to the brand new Aptera.
The Aptera also doesn't look particularly safe. In fact, I'd be hesitant to go anywhere near a highway in one. It looks about as safe as a motorcycle (eg. not at all).
Please explain what's unsafe about a composite shell (several times stronger than steel), an F1-style roll cage that comprises a good chunk of the vehicle's total weight, a 45" crumple zone, a deflection system designed to make the car ride up and over in an accident, double the NTSB standard roof crush strength, double the NTSB standard door crush strength, and the most advanced airbags available. While you're at it, explain how it will roll over with a 7" wheelbase, a low CG, and downforce from the shape.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
and an existing market in place (big car companys) aways whine that it is impossible to make a different and better car, and then someone with little experience and little resources, comes along and makes something revolutionary. It's good to get a fresh perspective to shake things up, get all the old fattys that have fallen into a rut, moving again.
And you want to suggest that people buy four different cars so that when driven they can drive the one that has exactly as many seats as they need? Excellent thinking there.
> Perhaps if there were tighter regulations on vehicle size (without a
> special license) and size to horsepower ratio limits...
Yup, that's always a good answer when stupid people don't realize how much smarter you are, ram a gun in their face and yell DO IT MY WAY YOU MORON OR DIE! That is after all what ALL government 'regulation' devolves to, obey or else.
Listen up ya junior league nazi, if people WANTED underpowered crackerboxes they would buy them and Detroit/Tokyo/etc will be happy to make em in whatever qualtity moves off the lots. It is obvious what your problem is, cranial rectal inversion. Your complaint is the universal refrain of of type A Democrats.
Basically I divide the current world into three groups. Type A and B Democrats and everyone else.
Type A Democrats (Socialist Party members everywhere else in the world) believe that without the enlightened rule of their ilk the poor savages who make up the bulk of the population would revert to canibalism in a matter of days, totally unable to manage their own affairs. The masses aren't to be trusted to make the slightest decision, that is what the annointed elite is for.
Type B Democrats believe themselves to be helpless, totally dependent on the boundless mercy of Type A Democrats. These wretches are mostly created by the Type As (see Welfare Socialism and Government Schools) and are kept alive for the sole purpose of voting Democrat.
Everyone else wishes you santimonious pricks would leave us the hell alone. If we decide that horsepower is a good thing, for whatever reason, it is our decision to make, not yours. So why don't you piss off?
And in case there is any doubt, the preceeding was indeed flamebait. Totally true. But flamebait all the same.
Democrat delenda est
100mpg can be done, and Detroit knows it. However, a 100mpg car won't sell to anyone except Prius worshipers and Greenpeace flakes in Sacramento.
Even if gas prices keep skyrocketing, highly efficient vehicles will not be embraced by the driving masses (at least, not in the US) unless it has 250hp, seats eight, and treats a boulder like a speed bump.
Oh, and a dual exhaust is a must. Got to have that satisfying throaty roar.
Diesels because of the higher compression tend to be built much tougher than gassers. They also have higher torque per cubic inch displacement over equivalent sized gassers. The engines typically last for more hours/miles.(most designs, some really bad ones were just pitiful like those GM diesel conversions way back). with that said, sure, you can get both good mileage and a long lasting gasser engine, there's been some amazing advances in materials science/engineering/chemistry in the last few decades. You can get 300 bhp cars now that get a lot better mileage than 300 bhp cars way back when. They are more complex under the hood, but don't need as much maintenance. But newer vehicles fail hard, no degrading slowly, it is drives/no drives today mostly, no more "shoot, running rough, need a tuneup!" action like when I was first started to drive. (that was poking the sabre toothed badgers hooked up to the buggy in the ass with a stick and going "Mush, mule, heyaa! go!, now, ((**&^% go! ;)) We got two mountain crosses per haunch of wild musk ox and *we liked it*
No, I want to start running cars closer to the average needed size. Boot is not so big? Put the groceries in the back seat. Need to take a load of rubbish to the dump? Hire a suitable vehicle. Family + 4? Buy a suitable vehicle. I'm not asking for legislation that everyone have these vehicles, just that they think before buy that second/third massive car (vehicle ownership is increasing...) and ask is there a better solution? Sheesh! I'm just pointing out that they can have a fair use out there, so no need to decry them as a wasted cause before they are out. I'm encouraging a lifestyle change, not a restriction...
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
I'm new here, and I tried to RTFA. That has to be the least readable article I've seen on a site that one wouldn't expect to get a laugh from.
Black bold text with blue links for the article text, and WTF is that under the photo anyway?... light blue intentionally invisible caption text?
Oh yeah, and the whole thing is flush left...
Maybe I'm just sensitive today.
you spend so much time on /. that there's hardly time for anything else.
And maybe you can get better interest rates than that, maybe not. Maybe you have better things to do with your credit, maybe not. Either way the numbers don't look quite so rosy anymore.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Looking though the numbers, you seem to be assuming that the average person drives 70 miles in a day. That seems to be a high ball number.
for distances over 15km. to work...
http://www.twike.com/
still get your exercise, but still get to work.
diesel is a denser fuel which takes more crude to produce
Diesel is also easier to make synthetically from carbon-neutral sources.
already, there is trouble with the refiners trying to keep up with demand
That will pop up in time. In Europe, diesel is typically cheaper than normal gas because companies have already invested in the infrastructure to support it. If demand continues to rise in the US, there's no reason the same thing won't happen in time.
Not a typewriter
I rode in a Beetle once in early 1980s. We edged over 60mph going downhill - and the thing took off and glided to the bottom! My mom says something similar happened to my grandfather. He was crossing a bridge in LA , and suddenly the wind picked up the beetle and set it down 4 lanes over. One more lane and he would have been in oncoming traffic. He got rid of the beetle the next week.
There are two categories. The first one has more stringent practicality requirements, and the second is more free-form.
Not a typewriter
Most people go for "typical peak" capacity rather than average capacity.
Motorcycles fit the 1.13 average occupancy rate. Trouble is they are a lot more dangerous, and not nice in bad weather.
And you want to suggest that people buy four different cars so that when driven they can drive the one that has exactly as many seats as they need? Excellent thinking there.
Or maybe they can buy two: a tiny commuter car for the person commuting to work, and a family car for whoever drives the kids around. You know, something like how many families choose their cars these days.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Your version of liberty would work in a world with unlimited resources, but here on planet Earth, we are stuck with each other. Your "right" to a 500hp engine may well exist, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't cost $100,000 to buy and $500 to fill up, if that is the effect of damage it has on the ecosystem we all share.
Most others, thankfully, are reasonable. Perhaps a more effective rail system for freight delivery would eliminate the 18 wheelers from the highway system, and make a mother feel safer transporting her children in a lighter weight commuter vehicle, thus bringing down the average vehicle weight, saving energy, and creating less pollution.
Your vision seems to be that of 6000 pound curbweights being thrown around twenty lane highways, in what I would call an apocolyptic vehicular arms race. I'd prefer helping my neighbor through reasoned compromise, rather than drowning in the same cesspool with my arms wrapped around his throat, dying for my right to have the NASCAR edition of a Ford Excursion.
I'd rather have the liberty to receive phone calls from Saudi Arabia without having my phone lines tapped instead of having the liberty to destroy the environment for pure convenience. But the former are the aims of a person, and the latter the created wants of corporations.
And the fact that Toyota wants you to buy the product they've already developed for forty years instead of a newer, less profitable product, is somehow shocking to you? I think you need to re-read your basic economics book.
http://www.engr.iupui.edu/diac/meetings/Plug-in%20Hybrid%20Vehicle%20DIAC%204_10_08r1.pdf
http://www.engr.iupui.edu/me/faculty/~sanwar.shtml
The Aptera is a cool car...but cost $30k
I'd have to save a ton of gas to beat my paid for 20mpg sedan.
I gave my car to my daughter 2 years ago. People eventually stopped asking me to drive them places
I use Google satellite maps to spot trails, and avoid the major highways. There is a whole new world of hidden trails to explore that you never see from a car.
The biggest obstacle is businesses unfriendly to bikes. Lack of bike racks - even the outdoor variety is the worst. One place has lots of green posters up, but won't let me park my bike on their premises "because their insurance won't cover it".
But there is a movie theater with a sheltered bike rack 2.5 miles from my house. They get my business (I hate coming out of a movie to find that it rained during the movie and my bike is wet).
Who the hell pays 9% interest on an auto loan? People that should be taking the bus, that's who.
XML causes global warming.
If that's really all you care about, this prize is 10 million dollars. That'll buy you a lot of porn -- or pornstars.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Energy efficient cars?
I think any car design that uses charged batteries or plug in electricity and then claims 100mpg should have to take into account what the fuel consumption would be if all the electricity came from a gasoline fired generator. Saying 'we only use X amount of fuel' and then using a large amount of electricity as well without including that in the equation is lying.
I'm getting tired of hybrid vehicles that advertise massive "MPG" numbers. Of course they're discounting the energy that went into charging the batteries. If you take an entire trip using only the electric motor, you could claim infinite MPG but it would be meaningless.
It would be very helpful to be able to rate cars on a standard efficiency scale regardless of how they happen to be storing and consuming energy. Miles per dollar would be a start, but the ratings would always be changing with the fluctuations in both gas and electricity prices. Miles per (unit of pollution) would be interesting too, but it all depends on how the electricity used for charging was generated.
Are there any other ideas, or is this just not possible?
Wasn't IT, I mean Ginger, I mean Segway supposed to be the fix for all this "gas and mileage" problems??
If you'd like more info on the Automotive X Prize, check out these:
Table comparing 15 competitors side-by-side
Summary of the (draft) rules
Podcast focusing on interviews with the teams
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
I quote: Boeing engineers will help the West Philly kids with body modifications
No, really - go check it out. I didn't make this up.
Caaaaaaaafeine!
Insert
Good points, and don't forget the upcoming turbodiesel hybrid/econoboxes with ~50 mpg figures!
Why would you ruin the efficiency of a perfectly good diesel by hauling around an electric motor and batteries?
Over here in the UK and Europe we've had 50mpg diesels for decades. Even a fairly large car like a VW Passat (or the Skoda or Seat variations) can easily get over 45mpg in day-to-day running.
If you want *really* efficient, look at the VW Lupo 3l, with its 1.2l diesel giving nearly 95mpg.
In fact, what's with mileage going DOWN over the last 15 years? Why do I have to buy a hybrid to get a 35MPG Altima, when I owned a 6-cylinder '95 Intrepid with a 3.5L V6 just a few years ago that got a measly 35MPG when I drove with a lead foot? Who do they think they're fooling?
Because of an increase in weight. As the years have gone by, cars have gotten heavier and heavier.
A 1990's Camry and a brand new Corolla weigh almost the same. The engines are getting bigger as well, the V6 in the Camry makes 268-hp!
Unfortunately it's difficult to blame the manufacturers. Customers keep requesting more power, more room, and more safety for the same amount of money. Engine technology improves, but there's only so much you can do to offset the increase in weight and the need for a bigger engine to motivate everything.
Very few manufacturers are willing to downsize the engine, as that creates a bit of a marketing nightmare for the average Joe driver who sees the reduction in displacement (but equal or better performance) as a downgrade to the outgoing model. This has led a few manufacturers to simply insert smaller models at the beginning of their lineup as their current models balloon in side - the BMW 1 series is a good example. Some other manufacturers simply discontinue a model and replace it with one in the same class that is slightly smaller - the Toyota Yaris replacing the Toyota Echo is a good example so customers won't think Toyota suddenly "shrunk" the Echo.
Don't get me wrong here, some manufacturers have tried going the light and lean method, the Toyota MR2 Spyder s a good example. Unfortunately, people saw it as being underpowered since it has less HP than the model it replaced, even though it's acceleration was comparable and had superior cornering due to its longer wheelbase and light weight. The car was a tad expensive, and had very little storage space, but it's the perfect second car as a daily driver for its excellent fuel economy.
Personally I'd like to see the customer smarten up a little bit, I'm tired of the "I want more" attitude, I'd like to see more cars like the Toyota MR2 being offered and I'd like to see newer generations of cars get lighter - I don't care of my Camry can almost outrun a Ferrari Testarossa from 0 to 60.
However, they have released "computer simulated crash tests," which indicate how they'd like their car to perform under perfectly ideal circumstances. Somehow, that doesn't inspire confidence.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Even the most efficient diesel engine is doing 0 mpg in stationary traffic. Instead of wasting that fuel either switch the engine off and crawl on electric or use it to recharge the batteries. Hybrids are good in traffic , less so on long runs. Horses for courses.
Some have caught on to this, though. VW, for example, with their 1.4 l TSI engine, available with up to 170 hp.
I had a MK II MR2. The MK III (Spyder) was a huge letdown. The thing had NO ROOM for ANYTHING. I could get a week's worth of groceries or luggage for my wife and I in the back of my MR2 and still have some more room in the front trunk. No way with the Spyder.
I've got a design that will beat all of these, and not be limited to road travel.
I'd like to build a large carbon fiber solar powered, lithium ion battery toting zeppelin. I think for many reasons this vehicle will surpass the capabilities of all other entries, and go many, many more miles without using any gas at all. Unless it's the big model with a stove in it (and other RV accouterments). I prefer gas stoves.
Any engineers want to help me lay out the blue prints? Any VCs want to pwn Honda and every other auto manufacturer? Feel free to email me....
myspace.com/khanz
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That's what the Lupo 3l does - when you're stopped in traffic it will shut down the engine until you're ready to move off again. You could actually get the thing to do that on old Fiats in the 1980s, but it was a pain in the arse and broke a lot.
I take your point though - for most city traffic hybrids would be an approximate win. As soon as you take the car out into the country or onto the motorway, your hybrid system is mostly just ballast.
Kindly shut the fuck up, you sound like the exact polar opposite of the very people you deride in your post, and yet you don't seem to realize it.a
Fixed your mistake. What two old guys think I "need" means fuck all to me, and as an argument, you should realize how useless it is. In addition, it's no surprise to anyone that Berkeley thinks bigger autos are Satan incarnate is no more useful as the fact that oil companies think gasoline is a panacea. Consider the source works both ways. in 1967. They were primitive then, though, and were never more than "basic transportation". Tell me again why your opinion of "works fine" should mean anything to me?
Says you. In my extensive driving experience, such a car would be insufferable. Tell me again why your subjective opinion of what constitutes an acceptable auto should mean anything to me?
And that's just wrong.
The point you fail to comprehend is that if no one will actually buy or drive a 100mpg car, then it's a failure. So all the wonderful compromises you seem to think won't matter, do actually matter.
The lowest paid person in my company bills at $55/hr. You're looking at $10 in opportunity cost (assuming 4 miles at 20 minutes vs. 4 miles in 8 minutes) for every trip. $20-25 for your five mile commute, per day. I bill more than double that (yes, this /. post just cost me $10); it's a tough call when you put the dollars in place.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Where I live, just above ambient temp. would be unacceptably hot 9 months out of the year.
That's a disqualifier.
That's a disqualifier.
The fan keeps the car just above ambient temperature when it's parked somewhere. When you're actually driving it, it turns on the actual AC.
So when you claim there's a patent on your miraculous device, people can ask you for the number and prove you weren't lying.
Now I am no fuel-efficient car hater but I really hate the way green businesses of all kinds show the consumer how rosy everything will be once the user buys their product. These cars are no example.
What isn't mentioned in the article and is far too often overlooked in these the-earth-is-saved solutions is the total impact to the environment on the solution. Sure, the car is efficient and uses less Evil Oil. Great. But how efficient is the battery making process? What is the impact on the environment, and in this case, on the overall efficiency of the entire energy conversion process from acquisition of all of the vehicle's raw materials to destruction and storage of the vehicle? What are we going to do with the batteries once they fail and how much energy will it cost to dispose/recycle them properly? What new (and possible damaging) wastes would be generated, how much will it cost us to dispose of these wasts and what will the environmental impact of this be?
All of these costs and considerations should be included as well, but they aren't. All we consumers are told is how the car is cheaper in the long run and will be "better for the environment". Will this still be true if they make 3-5 million of these battery packs a year? 20 million?
It is similar to the "energy efficient bulb" fiasco. Yes the bulbs last a long time and are energy efficient. And yes, they cost $10, far more than a regular incandescent bulb, but they pay for themselves with longevity and energy savings. But these "green bulbs" contain mercury. Break one, and you probably need HAZMAT to visit your house. And this doesn't even consider all of the new mercury we are finding, refining/recycling and utilizing, mercury that wouldn't be otherwise put into the environment in the absence of these bulbs.
public void karmaWhore(String url){addSlashdotComment(fetchContent(url));}
If you have a 35 mile commute you probably live too far from work.
Yes, I know that sometimes both people in a couple work at different locations, or one can't afford to move when they switch jobs, etc., etc.
But it seems many of my co-workers chose to buy a house not in the neighborhood that's 2 miles from work (a very nice neighborhood) or one 3 miles away, but rather 15 miles away, so they could spend a little less money and get a house built in 2005 instead of 1982.
While fully realizing not everyone has a choice in where they live, most people I know do have a choice and could make one that minimizes the expense of their most common travel activity -- driving to work.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
Pure BS, a VW beetle WILL NOT take off at any speeds it could acheive with any ICE you could fit in the car.
Also the solution to all this is very, VERY expensive gas. Then the automakers' knee-jerk reaction will be to make ultra-light, ultra-efficient cars. (Think early 80s Japanese cars). Then eventually, the power will creep up a bit while the cars stay light, and we'll have some very awesome, very fun cars that are good on gas (think late 80s/early 90s Japanese cars). The Safety Arms Race will have to be stopped and undone. With only other light cars to crash into on the road, there will be no urge to weigh cars down like a bludgeon for greater smashing power. If anyone still feels the need to own a huge, overweight vehicle with the engine required to haul such a monstrosity...well maybe there will be better penis enlargement solutions for them in the future.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
...and it's easy to make a car that is efficient AND can accelerate quickly. It's called "low weight." Then you fit a small engine well-matched to the car, which will allow you to cruise down the highway with just a hint of gas, and go from 0-60 in well under 10 seconds when you need to. Making a big fat cow of a car and then putting a huge gas-guzzling engine in it so that it can haul its own fat ass around at a decent pace is stupid. Muscle cars are beautiful to look at and listen to, but they're disasters of engineering.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Customers keep requesting more power, more room, and more safety for the same amount of money.
Many do but not all.
I was disgusted last year when I looked at the Mazda 5 -- a nice car that seats 6 or has cargo space, very flexible. In Europe I could get it in a 1.8L or 2.0L IIRC, and in America I could get it in 2.3L or something even bigger.
Oddly enough, the 1.8L got better gas mileage and still had more power than I'd ever need. Since I didn't want to spend $19k on a car that wasn't what I wanted, I bought a 1997 Honda Odyssey instead (also seats 6). Getting 24 mpg in a car I paid $6k for is a lot more palatable than getting 27 mpg in one that cost over 3 times as much. $13k buys a lot of gas, still.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm
Note the words "through 2007" at the end of the first paragraph. If you read further, once these companies sell 60k vehicles, there will no longer be any tax credit for them at all.
Unless there's a new EP Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005), all of these alternative fuel cars will cost us the same or more than the current gas guzzlers if you take all the factors into consideration: vehicle cost, taxes, fuel cost, maintenance cost, insurance cost, infrastructure cost to provide electrical outlets to parking lots/garages and any unforeseen costs that such a change to our current system will incur.
I'm all for alternative fuels to decrease our impact on the Earth's ecosystem and shift power away from the petroleum companies, but you're fooling yourself if you think any of these cars will result in saving consumers money.
The engines in Europe probably require premium gasoline, while the ones in America run with regular.
You stop for a second and consider that I DID READ THE WHOLE THING before responding?
It DOES NOT have AC, it has a heat pump. They do not work the same, and in combination with the high ambient temp, will make the car unsuitable for MY needs.
Why are you people such assholes all the time, especially when YOU make a stupid fucking assumption...
No, actually, I won't. I will tell you that in the future, if you don't understand a post you're replying to, and get told so and corrected, it's incredibly pathetic to play stupid semantic games in an effort to gloss over your previous post.
However, there IS a difference. The fact that you don' understand what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you're ignorant.
or you can just go build the thing, put it on the road, and make modifications from there to the finish line.
Hell, Microsoft works that way and look where they are.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
That's because you ... can't. Right.
I will tell you that in the future, if you don't understand a post you're replying to, and get told so and corrected, it's incredibly pathetic to play stupid semantic games in an effort to gloss over your previous post.
And I tell you that I find it incredibly pathetic when people resort to insults when their attempts to get through with junk science (or junk engineering, in this case) are spotted.
However, there IS a difference. The fact that you don' understand what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you're ignorant.
Unless you can tell me, I take that as a proof that you just suck at HVAC engineering and thermodynamics. But that's okay, I hated the thermo and advanced thermo classes too, so don't feel too bad.
Hey, the question is even answered here:
http://www.apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=626&highlight=conditioning
a deflection system designed to make the car ride up and over in an accident
I keep reading this. To me this means much higher likelihood of a rollover, despite the lower CG. Until extensive data can support this is a positive, I'm forced to believe this is actually a negative.
Wrong.
Humidity.
Fuck off now.
No, it isn't.
Fuck off again.
I've also never known a water pump in a gas engine to last more than about 4 years.
That was true some two decades ago. These days, water pumps easily last 150,000+ miles on high load, high HP motors. It is not unreasonable to expect, on average, you'll get 8 years out of a water pump these days.
I'm sorry, but that's far from a fair comparison.
Using diesel will gain you a bit of efficiency, but remember that diesel is a denser fuel which takes more crude to produce
Diesel is a byproduct of refining oil for gas. Diesel, in of it self, is actually dirt cheap to produce.
And already, there is trouble with the refiners trying to keep up with demand.
Here is the rub and the reason why diesel has gone up. New requirements for low sulfur diesel is the single reason diesel is expensive. In the US, only TWO (or is it three) refineries can process and remove sulfur to meet requirements. This has the effect of increasing demand (by law), and reducing supply (limited refineries).
If the government would fine the oil companies a billion/yr, or more, for failing to meet demand, the economic picture would change. Technically speaking, highly processed diesel (low sulfur) should cost about 1/2 what is paid for gas at the pump. Any price much over that is strictly due to price/market manipulations by the oil companies.
You may not remember this but in the 80s, there was a new push to start creating diesel cars. Within a year of these cars going on the market, diesel fuel prices increased 40%, roughly overnight. Actual demand had not changed because the cars were just hitting the market. As a result, in the US the auto makers moved away from diesel engines. Fuel prices stayed the same.
Technically speaking, diesel is much cheaper to produce as it is a natural byproduct of refining gas and requires much less processing. Not to mention, requires much less additives. The fact that diesel prices are anywhere as high as they are now is thanks to several factors: the oil companies are fucking anyone on diesel (prices could be 1/2 of gas), oil companies refuse to create new refineries, artificially limiting supply, and three, law now requires this processing in the US, which does add cost and is passed on to the customer.
Why would you ruin the efficiency of a perfectly good diesel by hauling around an electric motor and batteries?
;) Which also has the added benefit of isolating the power source from the drive system, which reduces noise and vibration, further extending the life of almost all components of a power train (engine included).
You mean like the worlds most efficient trains, ships, and submarines do? Ya, you sure wouldn't want to do that.
15 miles away, so they could spend a little less money and get a house built in 2005 instead of 1982.
It is more complicated than that. In many cities, it's the difference between buying a 2000sq/ft house for $225,000 versus a 3000sq/ft house for $150,000. Remember, it's location, location, location, and in most major cities, you're going to pay for it. In larger metropolitan areas, twenty miles can make the difference between $500,000 and $120,000.
Even if you assume an extremely modest and unlikely difference of $50,000, with a difference of $5,000 in gas driving per year, that will require 10 years to break even. And in this day and age, it is very unlikely someone will be at the same job in ten years. Even worse, in a ten year window, it is much more likely a family will be started and the extra space will be required.
Do you have any references for that? What you state about diesel costing half as much as gas at the pump is at odds with everything that I've read on the subject, and indeed common sense (as a mechanical engineer). A barrel of oil currently costs $120. That's 42 gallons of crude. Assuming for a moment that it can all be turned into diesel, which it cannot, that would give you a diesel price of $120/42 = $2.85 per gallon. That is with ZERO refining costs, ZERO distribution costs, $0.08 gallon profits, $0.18 federal tax, $0.60 state tax, etc... I don't know where you got your information, but it can't possibly be right.
Remember that diesel is also used as heating oil, and things like kerosene are used for jet fuel - and kerosene is even easier to refine. Shipping burns a ton of it as well.
You can't legislate more supply - it is finite.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I'm not slamming diesel - it is a better fuel than gasoline in most respects. But switching to diesel is not going to relieve anyone's suffering at the pump. It will get you slightly better efficiency over a hybrid for about the same cost, and you are likely to get better life out of the engine.
But your tank will still cost $40 to fill, even if you have a little compact car.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Sure is, to quantify that a little googling showes an average commute (one way) of something like 16 to 20 miles in the US. So you are right by about a factor of 2 assuming that the first level google yielded credible numbers.
No one needs a 3000 sq ft house (unless maybe you house your in-laws and 6 kids and maybe a maid).
Because space has been plentiful in the suburbs, house design is crap. Families of 4 can live in 600 sq ft in NYC (admittedly a little tight). With some better house design, 3000 sq ft would go back to being a mansion as it should.
Even in major cities there are usually neighborhoods "near" downtown that are affordable; at least here in Austin I used to live 10 minutes from downtown (w/o traffic; 20 with) in a $120k house. It wasn't big but it was a roof, it was affordable. We moved out not because we had 2 kids but because opportunity presented, and I could then live 2 miles from work instead of 4. Our current house is 1800 sq ft and bigger than we need; one room is guest bedroom, one room has junk that we haven't found the time to sort, clean, give away, etc.
People need McMansions the same way they need an Excursion. Only in their fears, or in unusual circumstances.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
Frankly, I'd rather have monorail: smaller footprint (pedestals) so can go in the middle and above roadways. Too bad John Q. Public won't like the city looking like Disneyland.
People mover sounds good, but my thinking is that it'd have to be pervasive and universally used to be cost-effective. If you have any URLs for where it's used, please share.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
You mean like the worlds most efficient trains, ships, and submarines do?
Sorry, just to make sure we're thinking of the same thing here - how big is a car? How big is a train?
How big are their engines?
[quote]Citations please? Everything I've been able to find about LiP cells has been written by (or sourced from) somebody trying to sell them, apart from this IOP article, which only tests the cells through 100 charge cycles, and also notes some strange behavior with regard to the internal impedance of the cells after just 30 charge cycles.[/quote]
What, exactly, are you looking for? Real-world use? Sure, here you go. Or perhaps this. Or almost anything from that site. And remember, these are amateurs, and the sort of loads they're putting on these cells are an order of magnitude more than a BEV will ever do. As for "people trying to sell them", in the Volt, they're going to be having a very long battery warranty (they want to be able to ensure a minimum 10 year lifespan), so they *better* last, or GM's going to lose a fortune.
The company refuses to release crash-test data, despite claiming to have done several, and to have more or less finalized their design.
What on Earth are you talking about? The company has not done *any* physical crash tests; that's for late this summer/early this fall, once their new factory comes online. They *have* done crush tests and digital crash tests. They have pictures on their website from one of the digital crash tests and have described the overall results (they use the same crash software that BMW does). They also have a video tour that includes their crush rig.
Where are you getting this from?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Unless there's a new EP Act
Why yes, there is. The house bill only applies to PHEVs, but A) there is a movement to try and get pure BEVs covered in the senate version, and B) cars with solar panels could possibly qualify as a solar-electric hybrid.
Also, you ignore state and local incentives.
but you're fooling yourself if you think any of these cars will result in saving consumers money.
Yeah, it's not like I spend a couple thousand dollars per year on gasoline. Oh, wait, *I do*.
vehicle cost
$27k. Plus taxes (like on any car), minus incentives.
taxes
Covered.
fuel cost
A savings of a couple thousand dollars per year. So even if you're comparing the Aptera to a *free car*, just from the fuel cost savings alone, you have a ten year or so payback. Which equals 14 or 15 years when adjusted for interest -- still less than the average car's lifespan. And this is ignoring maintenance (see below). Let me reiterate: you ultimately end up saving money *buying a new car with luxury features and a miniscule environmental footprint* than driving a *free* car over the lifespan of both, ignoring maintenance (and if you get a car for free, it's probably old and a maintenance nightmare).
maintenance cost
Already covered. Battery maintenance should be similar to or less than maintenance on a transmission (the batteries should last the life of the car, but even if you had to replace them once, you're only looking at a couple thousand). There are about 10% of the moving parts in an EV drivetrain as in an ICE drivetrain, so for everything else, you're looking at a major maintenance reduction.
insurance cost
Liability coverage will be lower due to the motorcycle classification and light weight. Hard to say whether comprehensive will be higher or lower (depends on whether the extra vehicle coverage costs beats the decreased liability costs).
infrastructure cost to provide electrical outlets to parking lots/garages
The Aptera, by default, charges from a normal household power outlet, which can be found in almost every home in the US. If garages want to make extra money installing them, that's their business, but one thing is for sure: they'll be an order of magnitude cheaper than gas pumps to install. Even fast chargers would be cheaper than gas pumps when you factor in the cost to install things like the underground gas tanks and the extra amortized costs of fuel delivery (compared to easier electricity delivery).
and any unforeseen costs that such a change to our current system will incur.
Yeah, you mean like all of those "costs" associated with reducing gasoline consumption, such as long-term energy independence, a lower dependence on countries that hate us, more predictable energy costs, reduced air pollution, reduced healthcare costs from said reduced air pollution, reduced spoiling of wilderness lands for oil extraction, and so forth?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
No one needs a 3000 sq ft house (unless maybe you house your in-laws and 6 kids and maybe a maid).
That's a pretty absurd statement. Regardless of their need, only an idiot would subscribe the philosophy that paying more for less is a better bargain. Yet, that's what you're advocating.
It sounds like you need to rethink your position.
There is a difference between a home and 600sq/ft apartments.
Not sure how on earth you got modded down to -1 for talking in math ("Karma police -- arrest this man!"), but I'll further what you said: I recently did my budget, and found that in the past year, with no "major" things breaking (like the transmission or the engine block), maintenance on my car was about $1,000. All the little things add up. One of the big maintenance problems with an ICE drivetrain is that there are just so darned many parts. Even if they all average having significant lifespans, the costs are still going to rack up. Part of the beauty of EV drivetrains is that they're so simple. I've talked to former EV-1 owners and RAV4EV owners, and both loved this about their cars; they had virtually no maintenance.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
From my original post: Actual demand had not changed
I think you missed my point. The point being, there is zero legitimate reasons for diesel to cost anywhere near as much as it does. Even with the additional processing required for the low sulfur variant, it pales in comparison to what is required to create low grade gasoline. And most of what is refined from oil is diesel, making it far more abundant than gas. And to boot, diesel doesn't have very, very expensive and worthless additives like MTBE or ethanol (one of the reasons gas prices went up a lot).
In some cases, a series gasoline hybrid can perform better on the highway than an equivalent gasoline-only car, so I imagine the same would be true with diesels. It lets you have a smaller engine without sacrificing acceleration and also lets the engine run at optimal speeds at all times. Currently, one big problem is the inefficient storage of power in the batteries. Li-ion series hybrids should perform better than the current NiMH ones. Also, two-mode hybrids should have the same benefits (they use clutches to deactivate parts of the drivetrain that don't need to be running at any given point in time).
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
But that's extra weight and complexity - more things to wear out and break down, more things that need more energy materials to make and which will make more landfill when the car is scrapped. There's more to running a car than the cost of the fuel you put in.
Keep it simple.
I don't have references to provide.
You are correct, I did say, "at the pump", which is not correct (hmmm...wonder if I said that elsewhere today). It is correct to say it should cost half to get on truck, taxes included, etc.
Keep in mind, about 2/3 of every barrel of crude is to become diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, or lubrication. Given that diesel takes a fraction of the processing, including new sulfur requirements, of which gas does, is more plentiful, can be processed from lower grade crude (one of the reasons you used the wrong price in your calculation), diesel is dirt cheap to deliver. Normally, the highest grade crude is used for gas. Whats left is then used for diesel, etc. The lower grade stuff is often used for diesel (using much more than 2/3) and a smaller portion of this is used for gas as it requires far, far more processing.
So while gas is typically associate with raw crude at prices in the $115+ range, diesel can be made from the junk stuff in the $60s.
Pavement was dry - no hydroplaning. And bumble bees can't fly either.
Detroit is run by a corrupt nigger.
Check out this Wikipedia entry on octane calculations between the US and Europe
Here's snippet:
It should be noted that this higher rating seen in Europe is an artifact of a different underlying measuring procedure[...]Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere
So cars in Europe do not in fact "require premium gasoline".
Murphy(c)
I don't know what you define as "regular" gasoline, but regular in the UK runs at 93-95 octane, with premium at 98-99. If 93 octane is premium in the US, I pity the poor engines which have to take that crap.
That said, UK fuel has cracked $9/gal; I guess we pay for it.
xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
Different countries use different ways to measure octane numbers. Despite that, "regular" in the US is roughly similar to "regular" in Europe, when translated to the same way of measuring. Same goes for premium/super.
Over 50% of a barrel of oil is turned into gasoline. Only about 15% is turned into diesel and other fuel oils of that class.
Now that can obviously be tweaked, but still - nothing even close to "most" of what is refined becomes diesel.
Also, you can argue that refiners are artificially jacking up the price, but they sure aren't profiting from it. I think refiners make about $0.08 per gallon on average - not exactly the greedy margins that you seem to imply. Here's another link showing the breakdown of cost in a gallon of gas. The biggest hit is by far the cost of petroleum. In a $3.89 gallon of gas, the refiners and distributors take a mere $0.40 - and that is not all profit.
And from this link:
It goes on to say that the demand likely comes from the farm sector. So if diesel is rising in cost before the clean diesels arrive now, in 2008... isn't it possible that the same thing happened in the early 80s? Can't demand come from something other than cars?
And that's without getting into futures markets.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
only an idiot would subscribe the philosophy that [foo] ... Yet, that's what you're advocating.
I was looking for arguments; I seem to have found abuse. Ah well.
I don't know where you live and I don't know what property values look like compared to location and home structure. I do know a lot about property where I live, though, and in my area there's a reason that some houses cost more than others. They're not *less*, they're smaller. And closer to downtown. And in old neighborhoods with quaint architecture, and large shade trees. These things have a significant value too, though I suppose if your only metric is price per square foot, yeah, they're "less" for "more".
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
Gasoline can most certainly be made with crap crude - it just costs more to do so. The refineries in Texas are all set up to do just that to the horrid Venezuelan crude.
I think you are confusing the distilling process with other processes that refineries can use... yes, Venezuelan crude will only yield 5% gasoline after distillation, but in Texas they use things like catalytic and thermal cracking,
hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, alkylation, and polymerization. These processes are indeed more expensive, but the crappy crude costs less so the refiners do it anyway.
You could crack it and make diesel instead, but once you are paying for those treatments and filtering out all the sulfur, you might as well make whatever the market is demanding.
Anyway, the price difference between light sweet and heavy sour is only about 10-20%, I think... still not going to solve your problems at the pump. I'd love to know where you got your $60s number!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If we decide that horsepower is a good thing, for whatever reason, it is our decision to make, not yours.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Usually I just breeze through the Slahdot commentary because it's so vapid, but you guys are so interesting and articulate that I've been pouring over nearly every post.
Here in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota) we've managed to get one light rail line and it's been a smashing success. (Pardon the pun for you people who've been writing about trains running into cars.) The key is that it's connected downtown Minneapolis with the airport and the Mall of America, giving solid anchors to the line. People ride it to see balls games at the Dome, go to work downtown, shopping at the mall, or down to the aiport so they don't have to put their car into long term parking.
Another added bonus is that is has spurred high density development along the line, something you'll never get from a bus line. At the moment we're fighting for new light rail lines as well as commuter rail. And there has been some talk about getting trollies back in Minneapolis. Sure, rail isn't going to stop in every neighborhood. But then buses don't stop at every doorway either. The point is to give people additional options besides simply taking a car. Will the various train options eliminate congestion? Not a chance. They aren't some magic bullet to traffic problems any more than buses are. They're simply another tool in the transportation kit, another way for people to get around. Just like cars, just like buses, and just like bicycles.
Given the amount of driving people do today, there's simply no way to build freeways wide enough to handle all the traffic.
See, that's exactly my point. If you wee half as informed on the subject as you pretend, you wouldn't have to ask, because you'd know exactly what I'm referring to. That you don't proves my point, you're ignorant.
Guess what asshat, you've gone from being wrong and ignorant to using fallacies to support you being wrong and ignorant.
How about you stop pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about and actually LEARN WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I just can't seem to make sense of your junk physics. The HVAC engineer next to me can't either. I'm sorry I'm so completely clueless about junk physics, but I don't have any intention to get any deeper into that particular field than necessary to tell junk physics from the real thing.
Apart from expletives and nebulous claims, you've posted nothing to back up your statements. The textbooks on thermodynamics that I have don't have separate phase diagrams for water being cooled "by a heat pump" and "by an AC", because there's no difference. Neither between "AC" and "heat pump" for most applications (swamp coolers and chunks of dry ice excepted), nor in the way water behaves.
Whether a heat pump can be used for dehumidification only depends on how powerful it is (i.e. how far it can reduce the temperature below the dew point).
Guess what asshat, you've gone from being wrong and ignorant to using fallacies to support you being wrong and ignorant.
More expletives, more nebulous claims. You have no clue about thermodynamics, period, and probably wouldn't recgonize a phase diagram if it came with a big neon sign attached to it. Swear all you want, that won't change the facts. Want to prove me wrong ? Just find that magical phase diagram for "water being cooled by a heat pump".