A basic automatic is a disadvantage when you want to accelerate quickly, because it will shift for you, keeping your revs low (unless the gearbox is in a hyper-agressive sport mode, which would be unlikely).
Only stone-age automatic transmissions would work this way. A recent one will actually monitor the drivers demand for acceleration and stay in the same gear or even drop down one gear (or even two). Most automatics also have a "kickdown" feature, meaning that they will automatically shift down at least one gear if the driver pushes the accelerator all the way down.
However, some poorly implemented (or defective?) ABS systems would modulate the brakes on all four tires even though only one tire was losing traction.
Here's a small physics quiz: What happens to the car if the wheels on one side don't turn as fast as the wheels on the other?
The car skids. The ABS system in your case wasn't poorly implemented or defective, it was trying to keep the car going in a straight line instead of letting it veer off into one of the adjacent lanes or off the road.
Bumpers shouldn't disintegrate and need to be replaced for hundreds (or thousands in some cases) of dollars in a 5 mph collision. But that's what you get with plastic "bumpers". A traditional steel bumper is cheap AND effective.
Did you actually read the original post? I suspect you didn't. Let me quote a fairly relevant passage, then:
"I was rear-ended at a fairly high-speed (I was sitting at a stop light) a few years ago in a Volvo, by a Saturn"
The OP didn't get into a 5 mph collision. Unless he has a very strange perception of speed.
You act like steel crumple zones don't exist and aren't effective. You can effectively absorb energy without reducing your car to 2/3 of it's original length, and 0/3 of it's original value.
Yes, you can transfer all of that energy and momentum to the meat and bones in the passenger compartment. Funerals run much cheaper than a new car. If you don't want to do that, and your crumple zone (which is always metal, even on the "plastic" cars you cite) crumples, even just by one or two inches, then you're looking at either horribly expensive repairs (if the legislation where you are actually considers cars streetworthy again after such repairs) or a new vehicle.
It seems to me that cars built like tanks are called tanks, and they protect people.
No, a tank protects the tank first, because it's a lot more expensive than the people inside.
New designs could easily incorporate much more metal and be just as safe, if not safer.
Err... no. At some point, you're looking a physics that a regular driver couldn't control anymore. Tires just have that much adhesion to the road, brakes can just absorb that much energy, all that stuff.
New designs _are_ safer than that old hunk of metal. They don't impale you on the steering column and break your legs while they're at it.
I was rear-ended at a fairly high-speed (I was sitting at a stop light) a few years ago in a Volvo, by a Saturn.
The Saturn was a mess (and literally *bounced* off of the Volvo). My car needed a new bumper and a bit of paint*.
Err... yes? The part of the Saturn that is designed as a crumple zone hit a part of your Volvo that is not designed as a crumple zone. As intended by the designers, the crumple zone of the Saturn... crumpled, and the read of your Volvo, which isn't designed to crumple, did not. What else should have happened, in your opinion?
So now you're advocating driving aggressively because, damn it, no one can get in front of ME!
They can get in front of me all they want as long as they don't cut into my safety distance. The only way to assure this is to not lead them into temptation. If they want to get in front of me, they can stay in the passing lane (where I am not) and find someone elses safety distance to cut into.
Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
Locking the brakes will either not affect your stopping distance _or_ make it longer on most surfaces (exceptions being things like sand, gravel and deep snow where the wheels can actually dig in).
And if it's a life^death situation and there's going to be an accident anyway, why not chose to crash into something other than the semi in front of you? You can do that with ABS, or if you're cool-headed enough to stutter-brake in what you describe as a panic situation (hint: most people aren't).
A: Drop down a gear and floor it. The guy behind will have seen his indicator and be able to slow down to accomodate. B: Slam on your brakes.
C: HONK.
Really. That's what that thing is for. A won't get you out of the zone of danger quickly enough, so B would be my choice, withtout the "slamming" part (even braking moderately will result in a much greater delta V than any kind of acceleration your car might have, and it gives the guy behind you enough time to brake, too).
So, my question is, in such a scenario, where you're converting chemical -> mechanical -> electrical -> mechanical energy, is the total conversion more efficient than putting the energy from the ICE directly into the powertrain? I honestly, don't know the answer to that.
In stop&go traffic, the answer is most likely yes. ICE efficiency sucks while accelerating, while it's great when running at its optimum working point (load&rpm).
The reason why it hasn't been done yet is that it's a much farther step away from a "conventional" car than todays hybrids. A car built this way needs larger batteries and an engine designed for working under these conditions.
In their driver's ed program you are *REQUIRED* to master driving at 120MPH before you can obtain a license.
Most cars commonly used by driving instructors (VW Golf TDI and the like) don't go that fast, but yeah, you'll have to spend some time on the Autobahn doing 90-100 MPH. I was lucky, my driving instructor had a BMW convertible, and I learned to drive in July/August.
Where I live, 1 years worth of full coverage would be more than that car is worth. You'll usually get full coverage for new vehicles, switch to partial coverage after a few years (while the car is still worth something), and start putting the money you would have paid for full or partial coverage into the "next car" savings account once the thing starts approaching scrap value.
If you really cared about being safe you'd drop back sufficiently far to be safe.
Then you still get stuck behind the pileup the other guy causes, and maybe even get hit by the guy behind you who didn't pay attention when you had to brake.
Apparently you think that the engineers at Ford are incapable of removing material from the vehicle or are too stupid for it to occur to them.
So what are they going to remove?
Safety? No one's gonna buy it then.
Comfort? See safety.
Convenience? See safety.
Something that's completely redundant? Err, yeah. In that case, they were probably stupid for adding that in the first place.
Or do you mean they're going to make it lighter by making it more expensive?
See Audi A2. Brilliant engineering, no one bought the thing.
So someone is stupid because he uses some new, still developing technology to improve the performance of a vehicle instead of an already developed proven technology?
Yes. If the design goal is "give this car more HP", and they haven't yet put in the biggest honkin' engine they can find and supercharged the crap out of it before looking at methods that are new, unproven ("still developing") and outlandishly expensive... then that'd better be hobby project on their own dime, since any company that works this way is going to go under.
Remind me not to hire you for my R&D department.
So your R&D department would make overpriced, underpowered products by deliberately overlooking the proven, obvious solution to a simple engineering task ("give that car more horsepower"), and instead go for the shiny new method that will have uncertain results and most likely waste wads of cash? I don't think I'm going to send you a resume, since your company is going under. You sound like the type of boss the prescribes a certain technology to his staff just because he thinks its neat, cost and efficiency be darned.
So, for normal stop-and-go traffic your ICE would basically be driving a generator the entire time. Sounds like a great way to reduce overall efficiency in normal, day-to-day driving scenarios.
No, because in this scenario the ICE would only run to charge the batteries, and when it runs, it can run at its optimal working point.
Yes it does if you or I do it. Not necessarily if it is done by the engineers at Ford.
Apparently, you think engineers are magicians who can magically make the law of conservation of mass disappear. Well, I am an engineer, and let me tell you, we're subject to the same physics that everyone else is. "You add stuff weighing X kg to car" means "Car will be X kg heavier". That's the way it works. If you want the car to have the same weight, you'll have to pay for that (in money for more expensive materials used when making the car, or in convenience/comfort/safety by throwing stuff out for a total of X kg).
Or someone who is very smart and has way too much clue about engineering.
No. If they want to make their car faster and go this route, they're dumb. Period. Using a bigger engine, supercharging it, whatever, gives you a faster car for less money. If they do it as an interesting engineering project, that's something different.
You're making his point. The computer simulation you reference is known to be inaccurate. Useful, but inaccurate.
Accurate enough to base conclusions worth billions of dollars on it (not to mention that it's most likely impossible to come up with an analytical solution). And yet it's supposedly irresponsible? I don't think so.
My nightmare is having an electric car during and evacuation for a hurricane. It is hard enough now to find gas to get out, not to mention if you screw up, and are in traffice for up to 20 hours (hot days with the AC running). You'd be stranded pretty badly in an electric car [...]
... unless you bring a generator, of course. Bonus points for mounting it on top of the car.
Slashdot Mirror
A basic automatic is a disadvantage when you want to accelerate quickly, because it will shift for you, keeping your revs low (unless the gearbox is in a hyper-agressive sport mode, which would be unlikely).
Only stone-age automatic transmissions would work this way. A recent one will actually monitor the drivers demand for acceleration and stay in the same gear or even drop down one gear (or even two). Most automatics also have a "kickdown" feature, meaning that they will automatically shift down at least one gear if the driver pushes the accelerator all the way down.
Here's a small physics quiz: What happens to the car if the wheels on one side don't turn as fast as the wheels on the other?
The car skids. The ABS system in your case wasn't poorly implemented or defective, it was trying to keep the car going in a straight line instead of letting it veer off into one of the adjacent lanes or off the road.
Did you actually read the original post? I suspect you didn't. Let me quote a fairly relevant passage, then:
"I was rear-ended at a fairly high-speed (I was sitting at a stop light) a few years ago in a Volvo, by a Saturn"
The OP didn't get into a 5 mph collision. Unless he has a very strange perception of speed.
You act like steel crumple zones don't exist and aren't effective. You can effectively absorb energy without reducing your car to 2/3 of it's original length, and 0/3 of it's original value.
Yes, you can transfer all of that energy and momentum to the meat and bones in the passenger compartment. Funerals run much cheaper than a new car. If you don't want to do that, and your crumple zone (which is always metal, even on the "plastic" cars you cite) crumples, even just by one or two inches, then you're looking at either horribly expensive repairs (if the legislation where you are actually considers cars streetworthy again after such repairs) or a new vehicle.
It seems to me that cars built like tanks are called tanks, and they protect people.
No, a tank protects the tank first, because it's a lot more expensive than the people inside.
New designs could easily incorporate much more metal and be just as safe, if not safer.
Err ... no. At some point, you're looking a physics that a regular driver couldn't control anymore. Tires just have that much adhesion to the road, brakes can just absorb that much energy, all that stuff.
New designs _are_ safer than that old hunk of metal. They don't impale you on the steering column and break your legs while they're at it.
And you get stuck in the resulting traffic jam if the problem "solves itself".
The Saturn was a mess (and literally *bounced* off of the Volvo). My car needed a new bumper and a bit of paint*.
Err ... yes? The part of the Saturn that is designed as a crumple zone hit a part of your Volvo that is not designed as a crumple zone. As intended by the designers, the crumple zone of the Saturn ... crumpled, and the read of your Volvo, which isn't designed to crumple, did not. What else should have happened, in your opinion?
They say it stands for "Corps Diplomatique", but really it's "Can't drive".
And here I thought it meant "Can drive (any way I want to, and you can't do anything about it, sucker!)".
What if they don't _want_ to driver properly?
If someone has the proper education the won't feel the need to travel over 80 mph.
What if they just _want_ to drive faster?
They can get in front of me all they want as long as they don't cut into my safety distance. The only way to assure this is to not lead them into temptation. If they want to get in front of me, they can stay in the passing lane (where I am not) and find someone elses safety distance to cut into.
And two seconds is not enough at those speeds (it takes exponentially longer to stop); three seconds is better,
Three seconds is large enough for another car to try and squeeze in there.
Locking the brakes will either not affect your stopping distance _or_ make it longer on most surfaces (exceptions being things like sand, gravel and deep snow where the wheels can actually dig in).
And if it's a life^death situation and there's going to be an accident anyway, why not chose to crash into something other than the semi in front of you? You can do that with ABS, or if you're cool-headed enough to stutter-brake in what you describe as a panic situation (hint: most people aren't).
A: Drop down a gear and floor it. The guy behind will have seen his indicator and be able to slow down to accomodate. B: Slam on your brakes.
C: HONK.
Really. That's what that thing is for. A won't get you out of the zone of danger quickly enough, so B would be my choice, withtout the "slamming" part (even braking moderately will result in a much greater delta V than any kind of acceleration your car might have, and it gives the guy behind you enough time to brake, too).
In stop&go traffic, the answer is most likely yes. ICE efficiency sucks while accelerating, while it's great when running at its optimum working point (load&rpm).
The reason why it hasn't been done yet is that it's a much farther step away from a "conventional" car than todays hybrids. A car built this way needs larger batteries and an engine designed for working under these conditions.
The REAL question is, why does an ADULT need to be driving over 80?
So they can get fined by cops for $$$. And even if they don't get caught, they're still using more gas, which translates into more tax revenue.
Why again should the government deprive itself of a source of money?
Most cars commonly used by driving instructors (VW Golf TDI and the like) don't go that fast, but yeah, you'll have to spend some time on the Autobahn doing 90-100 MPH. I was lucky, my driving instructor had a BMW convertible, and I learned to drive in July/August.
Where I live, 1 years worth of full coverage would be more than that car is worth. You'll usually get full coverage for new vehicles, switch to partial coverage after a few years (while the car is still worth something), and start putting the money you would have paid for full or partial coverage into the "next car" savings account once the thing starts approaching scrap value.
If you really cared about being safe you'd drop back sufficiently far to be safe.
Then you still get stuck behind the pileup the other guy causes, and maybe even get hit by the guy behind you who didn't pay attention when you had to brake.
So what are they going to remove?
Safety? No one's gonna buy it then.
Comfort? See safety.
Convenience? See safety.
Something that's completely redundant? Err, yeah. In that case, they were probably stupid for adding that in the first place.
Or do you mean they're going to make it lighter by making it more expensive?
See Audi A2. Brilliant engineering, no one bought the thing.
So someone is stupid because he uses some new, still developing technology to improve the performance of a vehicle instead of an already developed proven technology?
Yes. If the design goal is "give this car more HP", and they haven't yet put in the biggest honkin' engine they can find and supercharged the crap out of it before looking at methods that are new, unproven ("still developing") and outlandishly expensive ... then that'd better be hobby project on their own dime, since any company that works this way is going to go under.
Remind me not to hire you for my R&D department.
So your R&D department would make overpriced, underpowered products by deliberately overlooking the proven, obvious solution to a simple engineering task ("give that car more horsepower"), and instead go for the shiny new method that will have uncertain results and most likely waste wads of cash? I don't think I'm going to send you a resume, since your company is going under. You sound like the type of boss the prescribes a certain technology to his staff just because he thinks its neat, cost and efficiency be darned.
Wasteful maybe but not stupid.
Wasteful engineering is bad engineering.
No, because in this scenario the ICE would only run to charge the batteries, and when it runs, it can run at its optimal working point.
Also, with a 4WD, you'll only get stuck in places where you'll need to call someone with a tractor to pull you out.
Actually, it's quadratic, at least if they behave like a capacitor should. E = 0.5 * C * U^2
Yes it does if you or I do it. Not necessarily if it is done by the engineers at Ford.
Apparently, you think engineers are magicians who can magically make the law of conservation of mass disappear. Well, I am an engineer, and let me tell you, we're subject to the same physics that everyone else is. "You add stuff weighing X kg to car" means "Car will be X kg heavier". That's the way it works. If you want the car to have the same weight, you'll have to pay for that (in money for more expensive materials used when making the car, or in convenience/comfort/safety by throwing stuff out for a total of X kg).
Or someone who is very smart and has way too much clue about engineering.
No. If they want to make their car faster and go this route, they're dumb. Period. Using a bigger engine, supercharging it, whatever, gives you a faster car for less money. If they do it as an interesting engineering project, that's something different.
You were saying that I am making GGGPs point, which was that basing any significant conclusions on a computer simulation was irresponsible.
Accurate enough to base conclusions worth billions of dollars on it (not to mention that it's most likely impossible to come up with an analytical solution). And yet it's supposedly irresponsible? I don't think so.
$30k can buy phenomenal amounts of gasoline or diesel. Even at todays prices. Enough to drive well over 100,000 miles.