I think what I'm getting at is that I don't see the benefit in reducing our petroleum consumption. It's not a renewable resource where reduction of use can allow us to shift us to a sustainable usage pattern, it's a finite resource that we WILL run out of. Why does it matter if we run out later rather than sooner? one's not better for the earth than the other.
ReverendDexter wrote: Why does it matter if we run out later rather than sooner?
More time for me to play with my gas drinking cars.
Why would anybody want to pay a premium for a car that doesn't get the best gas mileage. PLUS the premium you pay everytime you take it into the shop. It's gotta be more expensive to fix on certain items. And how many local places would you feel comfortable taking it to for repairs? How about if you were 300 miles from home?
See, that's just it. Early fuel injection was unreliable, complicated, hard to get serviced, and expensive too. Now you can build a Megasquirt for a couple hundred bucks and tune it yourself with a $50 obsolete laptop. The technology is good, it just needs more development. It's too early to write it off yet.
What I would like to see is someone approach it from the opposite direction. Instead of building a gas car with an electric boost, build an electric car with a gas boost - by that I mean an IC engine that starts up automatically when needed to charge the batteries, and runs only in its most efficient power range. Also give it a wall charging mode so you can plug into mains power overnight, and add in an aggressive regenerative braking system. Put the motors out at the wheels and have all the power transmission done electrically. It may not be "that much" more efficient in net energy use than a conventional car (I suspect it actually would) but it doesn't hurt to diversify where the energy comes from. Would that be the best sports car ever? No, but I'm willing to bet it would be a great commuter.
So, I just gotta wait 120 years then?
mtn wrote: I get annoyed when almost every single hybrid I see has one person in it. I like it for the technology that it has and the technology that they are moving forward. I don't like them for most of the people that I've met that drive them (that I know drive them, if I know it, that means they are annoying).
What bothers me is LESS efficient vehicles with only one person in it, not more. IE gasser expedition with one person=very high gas per person per mile.
Joey
I am not for the hype nor the hate. I think hybrid technology has it's place in the automotive world. That place is in large vehicles. Trucks, SUVs, and Large sedans over 4500 lbs can greatly benefit from hybrid technology. We have seen it in trucks like the Silverado and Tahoe, and also in large cars like the LS460. These vehicles that get lousy mileage need hybrid tech to achieve something better than 20 mpg, even if it's only 25 mpg. If I had a pickup that could get 25 mpg and still tow 8000 lbs, I would be happy.
Oh and automakers need to stop slathering "HYBRID" all over these vehicles. I don't give a rats ass if it's a hybrid or not.
I hate the premise - what a "Hybrid" really is today - is an attempt to not sacrifice current vehicle design or written laws by making inefficient, overweight vehicles slightly less so using slick marketing and lots of complex, short-sighted means.
If a clean slate design were put together that focused solely on basic transportation that uses fuel efficiently it would not look like a Suburban or a Prius and it might weigh less than 2 tons.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If a clean slate design were put together that focused solely on basic transportation that uses fuel efficiently it would not look like a Suburban or a Prius and it might weigh less than 2 tons.
So, the 1st gen. Insight?
Just start making that one again.
Luke wrote: So, the 1st gen. Insight? Just start making that one again.
My idears are:
Small diesel powered, lightweight modular CF chassis, ABS body paneled platform offering a few different configurations for families from 2-6 passengers. Optional diesel/electric drivetrain ala Insight for primarily city/short use.
But... to pull it off - it would require a re-write of the vehicle laws in this country as well as volume sufficient to bring the cost of the technology down. Manufacturers are more than happy to keep making heavy stamped steel chassis and suspension components as long as no one is pressing them to do anything else. When its OK to sell a fleet of 25MPG vehicles averaging 1 and 3/4 tons... why would they bother to change?
Jay wrote: See, that's just it. Early fuel injection was unreliable, complicated, hard to get serviced, and expensive too. Now you can build a Megasquirt for a couple hundred bucks and tune it yourself with a $50 obsolete laptop. The technology is good, it just needs more development. It's too early to write it off yet. What I would like to see is someone approach it from the opposite direction. Instead of building a gas car with an electric boost, build an electric car with a gas boost - by that I mean an IC engine that starts up automatically when needed to charge the batteries, and runs only in its most efficient power range. Also give it a wall charging mode so you can plug into mains power overnight, and add in an aggressive regenerative braking system. Put the motors out at the wheels and have all the power transmission done electrically. It may not be "that much" more efficient in net energy use than a conventional car (I suspect it actually would) but it doesn't hurt to diversify where the energy comes from. Would that be the best sports car ever? No, but I'm willing to bet it would be a great commuter.
The electric motor with a generator concept is neat, but every step has pretty big losses that make it not work as well as you would hope. The high price and large size of batteries to propel the car are cost prohibitive. The wheel motors are also a ways from being very usable and may never really be because having any motor of usable size adds weight in a really poor place. A pure electric on the other hand should be infinitely more reliable. We are just waiting on battery development to make that one palatable.
Because batteries are really terrible energy storage devices which are inefficient, heavy and extremely environmentally unsound to produce and dispose of. Don't give me that "we'll recycle them via the smartgrid" crap either, you're telling me someone somewhere is going to compile hundreds of car batteries which have different compositions, shapes and sizes with whatever connctivity they might have and voltage/power they might produce and make something meaningful out of them? Yeah right, they'll use up more power in the charging/powering phases than they can ever make up for.
Jay wrote: What I would like to see is someone approach it from the opposite direction. Instead of building a gas car with an electric boost, build an electric car with a gas boost - by that I mean an IC engine that starts up automatically when needed to charge the batteries, and runs only in its most efficient power range. Also give it a wall charging mode so you can plug into mains power overnight, and add in an aggressive regenerative braking system. Put the motors out at the wheels and have all the power transmission done electrically. It may not be "that much" more efficient in net energy use than a conventional car (I suspect it actually would) but it doesn't hurt to diversify where the energy comes from. Would that be the best sports car ever? No, but I'm willing to bet it would be a great commuter.
Isn't this pretty much what the Chevy Volt does??? I think the technology of that car could trickle down to other low-cost options in another 10 years.
I am pissed because they don't have any cool hybrids yet. Why no V-12 / Jet Engine Hybrid huh? Or a rocket motor with a turbo V-8? Hello?
gamby wrote:Jay wrote: What I would like to see is someone approach it from the opposite direction. Instead of building a gas car with an electric boost, build an electric car with a gas boost - by that I mean an IC engine that starts up automatically when needed to charge the batteries, and runs only in its most efficient power range. Also give it a wall charging mode so you can plug into mains power overnight, and add in an aggressive regenerative braking system. Put the motors out at the wheels and have all the power transmission done electrically. It may not be "that much" more efficient in net energy use than a conventional car (I suspect it actually would) but it doesn't hurt to diversify where the energy comes from. Would that be the best sports car ever? No, but I'm willing to bet it would be a great commuter.Isn't this pretty much what the Chevy Volt does??? I think the technology of that car could trickle down to other low-cost options in another 10 years.
That's what it was supposedly going to be, but in the end they made the gas engine able to drive the wheels directly if needed or just charge the batteries. Think Prius with bigger battery pack.
MrJoshua wrote:gamby wrote:That's what it was supposedly going to be, but in the end they made the gas engine able to drive the wheels directly if needed or just charge the batteries. Think Prius with bigger battery pack.Jay wrote: What I would like to see is someone approach it from the opposite direction. Instead of building a gas car with an electric boost, build an electric car with a gas boost - by that I mean an IC engine that starts up automatically when needed to charge the batteries, and runs only in its most efficient power range. Also give it a wall charging mode so you can plug into mains power overnight, and add in an aggressive regenerative braking system. Put the motors out at the wheels and have all the power transmission done electrically. It may not be "that much" more efficient in net energy use than a conventional car (I suspect it actually would) but it doesn't hurt to diversify where the energy comes from. Would that be the best sports car ever? No, but I'm willing to bet it would be a great commuter.Isn't this pretty much what the Chevy Volt does??? I think the technology of that car could trickle down to other low-cost options in another 10 years.
The Volt departs from the Prius in huge ways. The Volt is basically trying to get you home with no battery charge.
In reply to tuna55:
The transmission/power delivery system is very similar. The Volt is really not that different than a Prius mechanically. More batteries, a little bigger electric motor, the ability to charge from the wall, and programming that centers around the electric motor driving the car instead of the gas one.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to tuna55: The transmission/power delivery system is very similar. The Volt is really not that different than a Prius mechanically. More batteries, a little bigger electric motor, the ability to charge from the wall, and programming that centers around the electric motor driving the car instead of the gas one.
Well, I do not agree, but that's neither here nor there with regards to this thread.
MrJoshua wrote: I pay more taxes so someone can incorrectly feel good about saving the environment and then lord their supposed intellectual superiority over me.
berkeleyin aye!
I'll make my final(ish) decision in hybrids when I see a bunch that ate 10-15 years old with 200k on them.
You'll need to log in to post.
