You're able to frequently ride your motorcycle with limited cargo and you stated that you'd drive the NANO, then why would you only be able to use a Smart car 10-15 times a year? However I agree with you on the Smart's high price tag. Here in Canada, Smarts only come with diesels (makes a lot more sense than the lower MPG gas engines), but for their size the fuel economy is not impressive enough with either engine.
For rainy days, a 30 MPG car might be more ideal than your 20 MPG truck, unless you need to haul heavy loads regularly (99+% of the people I see here could benefit from driving a smaller car and rent large trucks for hauling heavy loads a couple times a year. The fuel savings from smaller cars will easily cover the cost of truck rental and more. I rented a brand-newish Ford PowerStroke (large truck) when I needed to tow a project car from Vancouver island ferried over to Vancouver mainland (200km/124miles driven total) and it only cost me $65 for one day, not counting the cost of fuel.
My 2006 Volkswagen TDI diesel yields 40 US MPG and my fuel savings are $180 a month coming from a 20 US MPG vehicle. I'm not actually happy with the TDI's fuel economy (sometimes it dips to 37 US MPG with mostly city driving, or goes up to 43 US MPG on highway).
The 1996-2003 TDI (lighter car, and VE fuel injection has less parasitic loss) can easily hold at least 50 US MPG on highways, 45 US MPG if you drive more city or drive very hard.. even if it's tuned to 170 horsepower and over 250 torque. 350 torque is possible with a simple turbo, fuel injector, & clutch upgrade, so it has strong towing capabilities for camping trips. Jetta wagon models are also available for hauling large loads, but they have a high resale value.
Anyway, using a motorcycle to substitute a 20 US MPG truck 6 days a week makes enough sense. Lots of people here use their 4,000+ lbs 13-25 MPG vehicles to carry their 180lbs bodies around on a daily basis, sometimes using bags of groceries as their heaviest load.
It's much more feasible for shipping companies to tie kites to existing cargo ships, instead of overhauling them (no small feat) or replacing them with sailboats. Many ships also have stacks of cargo on top of them, which will get in the way of large sails.
Every once in a while, I go to a popular windsports beach and I see kitesurfers roll up their kites into a small backpack and simply walk away with a small kiteboard in their other arm, while windsurfers (sails) have to carry cumbersome parts to their minivan.
Regardless of whether or not sails are more efficient than kites, I am pleased to see shipping companies move towards clean, renewable energy.
Interestingly, kite surfers are able to move faster, both downwind AND upwind, than windsurfers (sails). The upward lift of kites help reduce friction in the ship's hull, which means even if they are heading upwind they still will see considerable fuel savings. Kites can be designed to have maximum vertical lift vs. horizontal pull or vice-versa. Fuel savings do not derive entirely from forward pulls. Sails can only drag ships forward.
The kites need less surface area than sails for power/lift. The surface size differences may not matter much to 170lbs recreational surfers, but it might mean something to a 10,000 tonne ship.
Slashdot Mirror
You're able to frequently ride your motorcycle with limited cargo and you stated that you'd drive the NANO, then why would you only be able to use a Smart car 10-15 times a year? However I agree with you on the Smart's high price tag. Here in Canada, Smarts only come with diesels (makes a lot more sense than the lower MPG gas engines), but for their size the fuel economy is not impressive enough with either engine.
For rainy days, a 30 MPG car might be more ideal than your 20 MPG truck, unless you need to haul heavy loads regularly (99+% of the people I see here could benefit from driving a smaller car and rent large trucks for hauling heavy loads a couple times a year. The fuel savings from smaller cars will easily cover the cost of truck rental and more. I rented a brand-newish Ford PowerStroke (large truck) when I needed to tow a project car from Vancouver island ferried over to Vancouver mainland (200km/124miles driven total) and it only cost me $65 for one day, not counting the cost of fuel.
My 2006 Volkswagen TDI diesel yields 40 US MPG and my fuel savings are $180 a month coming from a 20 US MPG vehicle. I'm not actually happy with the TDI's fuel economy (sometimes it dips to 37 US MPG with mostly city driving, or goes up to 43 US MPG on highway).
The 1996-2003 TDI (lighter car, and VE fuel injection has less parasitic loss) can easily hold at least 50 US MPG on highways, 45 US MPG if you drive more city or drive very hard.. even if it's tuned to 170 horsepower and over 250 torque. 350 torque is possible with a simple turbo, fuel injector, & clutch upgrade, so it has strong towing capabilities for camping trips. Jetta wagon models are also available for hauling large loads, but they have a high resale value.
Anyway, using a motorcycle to substitute a 20 US MPG truck 6 days a week makes enough sense. Lots of people here use their 4,000+ lbs 13-25 MPG vehicles to carry their 180lbs bodies around on a daily basis, sometimes using bags of groceries as their heaviest load.
It's much more feasible for shipping companies to tie kites to existing cargo ships, instead of overhauling them (no small feat) or replacing them with sailboats. Many ships also have stacks of cargo on top of them, which will get in the way of large sails.
Every once in a while, I go to a popular windsports beach and I see kitesurfers roll up their kites into a small backpack and simply walk away with a small kiteboard in their other arm, while windsurfers (sails) have to carry cumbersome parts to their minivan.
Regardless of whether or not sails are more efficient than kites, I am pleased to see shipping companies move towards clean, renewable energy.
Interestingly, kite surfers are able to move faster, both downwind AND upwind, than windsurfers (sails). The upward lift of kites help reduce friction in the ship's hull, which means even if they are heading upwind they still will see considerable fuel savings. Kites can be designed to have maximum vertical lift vs. horizontal pull or vice-versa. Fuel savings do not derive entirely from forward pulls. Sails can only drag ships forward.
The kites need less surface area than sails for power/lift. The surface size differences may not matter much to 170lbs recreational surfers, but it might mean something to a 10,000 tonne ship.