User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 11:36:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Go here for a spirited discussion:
[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=120157[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 11:41:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Honda Insight / Hybrids - Fad or future? I think you meant Fag or Future. I just bought a 4x4 1963 Chevy truck frame off restore. It gets about 10-12 MPG with a 327. Anywho, by the time hybrid technology is totally refined, were gonna have something better. Whether something better is a hydrogen fuel cell or some kind of neato catalyst that operates with water, I dont know. Something will replace hybrids before anybody knows what happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 11:42:25 AM EDT
[#3]
I know that the Honda uses D-size NiMH batteries, hundreds of them, linked together as the battery in their hybrid.
Now, considering that I just paid Honda $13 for two small plastic doo-dads for my sunroof, I shudder to think what Honda will charge to R+R several hundred batteries. Rechargeable batteries DO have a service life. One wonders what the life expectancy of a NiMH D-cell is. If it's a thousand cycles, that's like three years of driving! Factor in the cost of battery replacement, and the economics of the hybrid change dramatically for the worse. Anybody got some numbers on the projected service life of these types of batteries? That's the thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 11:45:58 AM EDT
[#4]
Fatman, they don't want discussion over there. That thread is closed to 'alternative' or different ideas.
Gun-Fan. Geez. Once again someone does something else that I can't. Hybrid technology is available, and more variations will be on the way. Ford is working on a hybrid SUV, based on their Escape, that will get around 40mpg. I have heard that Chrysler may be working on a full size pickup that will run off of electric motors and a deisel engine. The electric motors will power the truck from a stop, up to about 15-20mph, as this is when deisel engines are the least efficient. IIRC, Chevrolet was toying with research on a full size SUV that would run on a combination of electric motors and a full size V8. Estimates have put hybrid sales at around 500,000 units per year in 2010. (there were 16 million new cars purchased last year) Seems to me it's a bit more than a fad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 11:48:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: I know that the Honda uses D-size NiMH batteries, hundreds of them, linked together as the battery in their hybrid. Now, considering that I just paid Honda $13 for two small plastic doo-dads for my sunroof, I shudder to think what Honda will charge to R+R several hundred batteries. Rechargeable batteries DO have a service life. One wonders what the life expectancy of a NiMH D-cell is. If it's a thousand cycles, that's like three years of driving! Factor in the cost of battery replacement, and the economics of the hybrid change dramatically for the worse. Anybody got some numbers on the projected service life of these types of batteries? That's the thing. Officially, Honda expects the battery pack to last the life of the car. As the technology catches on, power sources will go down in cost. It's the nature of the market. The factory warranty on the battery/ integrated motor assist components is 80,000mi. by the time hybrid technology is totally refined, were gonna have something better. Whether something better is a hydrogen fuel cell or some kind of neato catalyst that operates with water, I dont know. Something will replace hybrids before anybody knows what happened. Agreed to an extent. Hybrid gasoline/electric vehicles are probably more of a stop-gap technology. A pure electric powered vehicle that runs off of hydrogen fuel cells, that can get a decent range would be the next step up, IMHO. It will probably happen, within most of our lifetimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 11:58:54 AM EDT
[#6]
Hybrids have thus far only attained small, unimpressive gains in fuel economy while at the same time requiring a compromise in vehicle size and capacity. A 10 year old Geo Metro or Chevy Sprint achieves almost as good of fuel economy as the current hybrids. So in that light, hybrids just are not all that dazzling.
Also note that hybrids, like convential internal combustion enegine vehicles, only get their highest fuel economy ratings while at constant highway speeds. Drive a hybrid around town or in stop and go traffic and the fuel economy plummets precipitously. I've conversed with a Toyota prius owner who was experiencing low 20s mpg around town in Seattle. Again, not very impressive. I think hybrid technology is only a stepping stone to cleaner, more fuel efficient energy sources. Think fuel cell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 12:06:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Also note that hybrids, like convential internal combustion enegine vehicles, only get their highest fuel economy ratings while at constant highway speeds. Drive a hybrid around town or in stop and go traffic and the fuel economy plummets precipitously. I've conversed with a Toyota prius owner who was experiencing low 20s mpg around town in Seattle. Again, not very impressive. I think hybrid technology is only a stepping stone to cleaner, more fuel efficient energy sources. Think fuel cell. You're correct boomer. I do think that hybrids are stop-gap. When fuel cells are more viable, we'll be using them. As far as in-town efficiency, the Prius owner you mentioned was probably doing something wrong. Those are a little different setup than the insight, and will get better economy in the city, than on the freeway. The Insight, while getting better mileage than the Prius in both situations, does get lower mileage in city driving. Most of my driving is city, and I consistantly get between 55 and 58mpg with little effort. The Civic Hybrid is more of the 'small gain' you mention. The non hybrid gets between 30-40mpg, whereas the hybrid gets between 40-50mpg, sometimes better. It's a marginal increase. New technology will follow, hopefully things like fuel cell/ pure electric vehicles with more useable range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 12:19:21 PM EDT
[#8]
I think they made the Insight somewhat purposely "ugly". They did it to attract attention (positive or negative) to the idea of a hybrid car. They wanted something that didn't look so mainstream so that people would get the message... then BOOM! A year later look at what they came out with:
[url=http://civichybrid.honda.com/landing.asp]Honda Civic Hybrid[/url]. Very mainstream car with a twist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 1:02:51 PM EDT
[#9]
As with any replacement to gas, an alternative must be:
1. Powerful 2. Convienent 3. Inexpensive 4. Flexible 5. Efficient If these 5 criteria are met, then the Gas engine will go away. The market will see to that! Some of the other discussions that our resident Insight owner is talking about are examples of where he hijacked the thread. I would rather discuss these things in a forum like this. Hybrid. Too expensive, and not yet put into large vehicles. In other words, not yet developed fully. I'll give it another 10 years, before I expect these problems to be worked out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 1:21:58 PM EDT
[#10]
I did read an auto mag. article on hybirds while waiting for the wife at the Dr's office, a test between the Honda and I think, a Toyota while both cars did fairly well, (they actually drove them a couple hundred miles in a variety of traffic, roads,) the point was brought up in the article about battery life, Honda admitted that a new batterys would set you back about $4-4500 or so,and then there's that little problem of disposal,(these things weigh at least 1000 lbs) So, you buy one of these things, and 5-6 years down the road, it's worth about $4-5000, and is gonna need a $4-4500 battery, who would be insane enough to put that kind of money in it? I figure when the battery takes a dump you'll be seeing the whole cars start showing up at the junk yards, No doubt, a stop-gap, I would love to see a viable fuel-cell developed, every one on the road would mean that much less oil we, as a country, would have to buy from those no-good bastard arabs, They, then could go back to what they do best....Kill each other over perceived religous issues, and herd camels all over the desert....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 1:32:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: As with any replacement to gas, an alternative must be: 1. Powerful 2. Convienent 3. Inexpensive 4. Flexible 5. Efficient If these 5 criteria are met, then the Gas engine will go away. The market will see to that! I would rather discuss these things in a forum like this. Hybrid. Too expensive, and not yet put into large vehicles. In other words, not yet developed fully. I'll give it another 10 years, before I expect these problems to be worked out. Well 1. The hybrid engines are powerful, or can be. Electric motors are lb for lb more powerful and get more torque. It's just how you configure them in relation to the gas engine. My engine is plenty powerful for the vehicle it powers. It traded power and speed for efficiency. It's not a race car, but it gets up and goes. (for example, the Prius gets about 230ft lb of torque from a stop. Nice, huh?) 2. Convenient? All I have to do is put gas in it. Just like a regular car. 3. Inexpensive. It's getting there. Just like new technology, it starts expensive and comes down. All technology does that. 4. Flexible. It runs just like a regular car. How more flexible does it need to be? 5. Efficient. I don't have to say anything on this one. Again on the powerful thing, because electric motors get so much torque, along with a gas engine, it can be engineered to get amazing power/accelleration. Honda is working on a two seat sporty version of a hybrid that gets around 500hp, and could probably blow the socks off of any pure gas vehicle. Power in an SUV (like a lot of you guys like) could be great with the proper combination of a gas engine and electric motor, and a good power supply, with a scheme (like regenerative braking) to keep the power supply charged, the amount of power you could get would be outstanding. The auto industry just has to BUILD one. Think about how long we've had internal combustion engines. Think about how long we've had batteries. Think about how long we've had electric motors/generators. The industry is just finally beginning to put them all together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 1:36:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: I did read an auto mag. article on hybirds while waiting for the wife at the Dr's office, a test between the Honda and I think, a Toyota while both cars did fairly well, (they actually drove them a couple hundred miles in a variety of traffic, roads,) the point was brought up in the article about battery life, Honda admitted that a new batterys would set you back about $4-4500 or so,and then there's that little problem of disposal,(these things weigh at least 1000 lbs) So, you buy one of these things, and 5-6 years down the road, it's worth about $4-5000, and is gonna need a $4-4500 battery, who would be insane enough to put that kind of money in it? I figure when the battery takes a dump you'll be seeing the whole cars start showing up at the junk yards I don't know where you got your information, but it is incorrect. The battery pack in the Insight and Civic Hybrid are a daisy chained array of about 130 D cell batteries. Not anywhere NEAR 1000lb. The cost of replacement (which includes the computer that runs the electric system) is about $1200 in each of those. It is a bit pricey, but it's covered for 80,000 miles (which will take me 4 or 5 years anyway), and Honda expects them to last the life of the car. I don't know about Toyota's battery system in the Prius, tho. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 2:07:02 PM EDT
[#13]
I stand corrected.. while Honda expects the batterys to last the life of the car, only time will tell, still, a stop-gap,no matter how you look at it....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 2:37:47 PM EDT
[#14]
I don't know bout y'all, but I like the idea of a hybrid. The way I see it, it reduces the amount of money that goes into the hands of OPEC.
~ and I probably don't need to remind you what they've been doing with all that money that we've been pouring into them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 2:59:35 PM EDT
[#15]
I don't see where hybrids make much sense on the small cars, since there's a diminishing point of return in fuel economy with them — nobody cares if you gain 10 MPG on a vehicle that's already getting 35+ MPG with a conventional drivetrain. Furthermore, there are IC engines that already approach the same fuel economy as a hybrid. Volkswagon has several diesels that will just about do it, for example.
However, anything that could double the city mileage of a vehicle that currently gets, say, 10 MPG, is maybe worth considering — even if it's not a hybrid powerplant. Ford has been toying with a hydraulic storage/assist system that dramtically improves the fuel economy of 3/4 and 1-ton trucks. That kind of thing is what the other automakers should also be looking into. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 3:03:02 PM EDT
[#16]
The Toyota chick at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Vegas told me that those 1/2 batt 1/2 gas cars will be "All the rage" in a year or two, that was 2 years ago.
I argued with her so much she asked me to leave, I told her to call me when Al Gore starts driving one, he does care about the enviroment right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 3:38:48 PM EDT
[#17]
I think its great that there is an alternative for those who want these types of cars.
If you want a 75 mpg lil car, thats your business. Personally, i want a V-8 car with a big cam lope, blistering acceleration, that can turn on rails and still give me some crash protection. Others may want a 6-parking space taking, 24" suspension lift having, 10-ton towing truck. Some see their cars as just transportation, others see it as a status symbol, and others see it as a high performance machine. To each their own. Just dont force me to drive what you want. I think as long as we all get REASONABLE fuel mileage and REASONABLE smog levels, then all options should be open. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 4:49:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Here's the solution to the entire mess.
Buy a diesel. Cook up your own bio-diesel from waste animal fat, soy oil, or whatever in your own backyard for about the same price as pump diesel. Become energy independent and drive a vehicle with an engine that will take several million miles of abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 4:57:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I think its great that there is an alternative for those who want these types of cars. If you want a 75 mpg lil car, thats your business. Personally, i want a V-8 car with a big cam lope, blistering acceleration, that can turn on rails and still give me some crash protection. Others may want a 6-parking space taking, 24" suspension lift having, 10-ton towing truck. Some see their cars as just transportation, others see it as a status symbol, and others see it as a high performance machine. To each their own. Just dont force me to drive what you want. I think as long as we all get REASONABLE fuel mileage and REASONABLE smog levels, then all options should be open. Pretty much says it all...! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 5:00:30 PM EDT
[#20]
all i have to say is if it's not a bb or an sb chevy motor i won't drive it unless i have to. the rumble of a bb chevy just makes me love the sound even more!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 6:10:39 PM EDT
[#21]
We shall see this September,
The 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 is supposed to come with a optional hybrid powerplant. Unless technical gremlins delay it. It will be diesel electric. With a a seperate 140hp Electric motor for each wheel. Kind of like a railroad locomotive. Also GM is supposed to be building a diesel electric HUMVEE for the Army and Marines. Again it will be a high horspower- but not necessacarily high speed vheicle These are both true hybred vehicles with only a small buffer battery. The engine drives a generator, which produces electricity to drive the wheels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 6:54:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: It will be diesel electric. With a a seperate 140hp Electric motor for each wheel. Kind of like a railroad locomotive. It should be kept in mind that diesel locomotives are not hybrid vehicles in the sense being discussed here. They do not have batteries capable of powering the traction motors. If the diesel prime mover dies, the locomotive loses it's ability to propel itself. Diesel locomotives also do not have regenerative capability. The traction motors are used a braking device on descending grades, with the resulting power generated being sent to an air cooled grid to be dissipated as heat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 7:27:51 PM EDT
[#23]
The problem with bio diesle is the amount you can make at home per batch Ive heard most make it a few gallons a time If someone can show me how to make bio diesle in a 20 gal batch faily easy and cheaply without huge start up costs and hard to get chems ill go buy a VW rabbet tomarrow... also a milion miles??? Ive heard rumers that it does not lubricate as well as other fuels or maby that is ethanol. overall I like hybred cars and if I had the money id buy one as a novelty I always thought the best car to create would be like a diesle generator start it up and idle it up to crusing speed where optimum power to fuel ratio is and leve it there no matter what the car does then use the power generated to run an electric moter that powers the car with as little mechanicle linkage as possible with reserve power going to a small battery that could power car in case of engine failure or no fuel situation what do you think
??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 7:30:23 PM EDT
[#24]
my restored 1980 silverado runs on pure crude
(i wish, that would be cool) hybreds are for corn, not cars. besides. bill mahr has one |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 7:38:07 PM EDT
[#25]
They're fuckin' ugly !?!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 7:50:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Personally I like the idea, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the preformance, but think that it will be over shadowed by fuel cells.
A.) In the near future with the development of the [b]massive[/b] oil feilds in Russia, and hopfully the opening up of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, OPEC will cease to be a monopoly, and I see no reason to think that the price of gas will not plumit in the not to distant future. Beacause of this people will not be willing to pay more for a fuel cell car. On the other hand I read that GM is working on a hybrid sports car that uses a small engine to turn a genorator which powers four electric motors, kinda a intermediate step between the 'AUTOnomy' and current cars, I look forward to seeing it. B.) At the rate that fuel cells are developing, we will have switched over to a hydrogen economy by the time that the price/avalability of petrolium warrents uber fuel efficency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 8:33:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Remember the 4ft hoagie hauler ???
Everyone said how great the AMC Pacer was too when it first came out... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 8:42:38 PM EDT
[#28]
NOT a fad but very, very early.
Buses make by far the best hybrid vehicles. (One of my brothers, 4subslr4, runs a very successful consulting business in the area of electric vehicle controllers.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 9:30:00 PM EDT
[#29]
You guys are all forgeting technology that already exists and is being used in Europe. The Diesel engine in currently extremely refined and getting MPG figures in the mid 40s and 50s. Decent performance. None of the smell and exhaust of the old diesels. They would cost less and would also be easier for current mechanics to maintain.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2002 9:44:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Anyone with a electric/hybrid want to go shooting. The car will have to handle at least 2 men (450lbs), guns & ammo(100lbs) have 4WD, decent ground clearance and the ability to extend the driving range if needed while still being self contained.
Yeah, I didn't think so. No hybrids with 4wd or clearance. No capacity. Carrying 2 jerry cans of gas will not help an electric out of anywhere, except to turn said vehicle into a search signal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 7:45:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Fuel Cells are where it's gonna be at. They were invented in the 1860's or thereabouts, and if plentiful oil supplies had not been found, they would already be the dominant power system. The only thing that is and has been holding them back is cheap gas and the insistence of the green types on non-industrialized power generation such as windpower and solar. Both of those technologies are dead ends for a variety of good reasons. But fuel cell technology would require heavy cooperation from industry, and teh greens ain't too big on that so they have been ignoring it.
I like the idea that a fuel cell generation plant could be installed at your home and fueled either by site distilled fuels or highly refined commercial fuels. I also like the idea that the primary byproducts would be pure water and heat for the house and water. A damned efficient concept. We just need to fund it to the point of practicality. Consider an integrated design including a fuel cell generator, geothermal heat storage, passive and or active solar and efficient home design. A little more effort to build and maintain a home fuel distillery unit and you're off the grid. Your waste heat is in the ground and being used to heat your home and hot water supply. Your house's highly efficient insulation is bottling up the heat signature. Pretty cool. Right now fuel cell generators are reaching the point where remote cabins that would otherwise require long pole runs to power, are as efficiently powered by fuel cell generator plants. I'm not certain if that is just initial purchase and installation cost or overall cost of ownership including power plant maintenance costs. I'm really looking forward to fuel cell development and am thinking of looking for a good investment opportunity in the segment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 8:02:20 AM EDT
[#32]
It seems the responses are mixed, and rightly so. Hybrid power sources for automobiles are somewhat in 'infancy' even though the separate technologies have existed for decades independant of each other. The people that seem to scoff hybrids seem to think they they are all underpowered and not very practically useful. That may be true to an extent, with only 3 hybrid vehicles currently available to consumers. However, hybrid powerplants will be more versatile and flexible in times to come.
It is my opinion that Hybrid powerplants for automobiles are a stop-gap, and will probably not get highly advanced, as things like fuel cells will become a viable source for electric power, and pure electric vehicles will suit many uses. I own a Honda Insight. I think it's a great vehicle, and it shows that hybrid technology is viable. It might not be big and powerful, but it works, and it works well. Given 90-99% of my driving is by myself, commuting to work or around town, it fits me perfectly. It is a niche vehicle, just like any regular 2 seat car. It has been mentioned that hybrid technology will be used in different ways, in different types of vehicles. I think we'll continue to see more and more hybrids on the roads, and even if they're not the majority of new vehicle sales, they will be out there. I think the future of automobiles in our country will evolve. We will probably still be using internal combustion engines for a long time to come, but we will also be using other power sources. We'll (hopefully) all see the evolution! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 11:50:41 AM EDT
[#33]
I figure that the Insight itself is a fad and will dissapear within a few years. It will obviously disappear if hybridization is a failure. If hybridization is a success then there will be no need for such a small vehicle and the vehicle will be dropped as the technology is integrated into other vehicles.
I think that auto manufacturers and consumers will discover over, say, the next 10 years whether hybrid vehicles are worth a higher purchase price, greater complexity, higher maintenance, additional weight, (re)training millions of professional and shadetree mechanics.... Do not forget that research being conducted to improve the fuel efficiency of existing engines and increase the supply of gasoline may keep the internal combustion engine as the most economically viable solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 12:07:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: I figure that the Insight itself is a fad and will dissapear within a few years. It will obviously disappear if hybridization is a failure. If hybridization is a success then there will be no need for such a small vehicle and the vehicle will be dropped as the technology is integrated into other vehicles. I think that auto manufacturers and consumers will discover over, say, the next 10 years whether hybrid vehicles are worth a higher purchase price, greater complexity, higher maintenance, additional weight, (re)training millions of professional and shadetree mechanics.... Do not forget that research being conducted to improve the fuel efficiency of existing engines and increase the supply of gasoline may keep the internal combustion engine as the most economically viable solution. You're right in that the Insight will probably not be around long. It's not one that will be widely purchased in the US. It was a kind of experiment by Honda. As far as the complexity of the hybrid car, it's not much more complex that vehicles are now. There is a computer that controls the engine and components, like in most modern cars. The electric motors are simple devices. The battery packs are easily replaceable (From a service tech's standpoint). As far as reliability, we use electric/electronic things all the time and don't worry about reliability very much. All in all, I think Hybrid technology in cars is stop-gap. There will be something better down the line to take it's place, but given the sluggishness of the auto industry to really strive for major technological advancements, it may take a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 3:02:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Why use and research hybrid technology if it is only a pitstop between here and fuel cells? Wouldn't it be better to put all the money directly into fuel cell R&D? This would save money from less hybrid research and from making only one technology transition instead of two.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 3:12:39 PM EDT
[#36]
I'm surprised that there hasn't been more interest in carbohydrate-based fuels as an alternative to fossil-fuels.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2002 3:16:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Why use and research hybrid technology if it is only a pitstop between here and fuel cells? Wouldn't it be better to put all the money directly into fuel cell R&D? This would save money from less hybrid research and from making only one technology transition instead of two. Politics pure and simple. The greens are HOWLING for greener transportation, but fuel cell cars are not ready for production so something else needs to get in there to satisfy the greens. Most car manufacturers have a fuel cell organization in them quietly picking away at the technology. They are also probably doing some work up on the electric motors side of thing while retaining the conventional system for back up. When they get the fuel cell power plant ready to go to production, thanks to hybrid work, they will have mature electric motors to match the power plant up to. To make fuel cell vehicles work they need two things: 1. an electric motor design that is robust, powerful and scalable enough to meet multiple needs from econoboxes to at least light duty pick ups and minivans. They also need a fuel cell plant that can produce enough juice to drive those motors in a small enough and light enough package to be practical. We'll see it happen but the tech needs to be matured and qualified in real-world trials. Hybrids will help do that. The Chrysler Ram project should be real interesting. If they can make electric motors work in such a large vehicle, it'll really help to prove the concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 11:28:51 AM EDT
[#38]
Found an interesting fact I wanted to share here... Someone in a previous post, defending larger vehicles, said something to the point that 'SUVs don't pollute any more than other vehicles'
Here's something from the EPA: Honda Insight CVT ...Less than 1 pound of smog emissions for every 15,000 miles GMC 1500 Sierra ....63.8 – 121.1 pounds of smog emissions for every 15,000 miles This was brought up by someone in Houston pushing for the DMV to allow hybrid vehicles to use the HOV lanes. After all, the purpose of HOV lanes is to encourage carpooling to cut down on emissions. 2 people in a GMC 1500 is better than one in an Insight? Also, recently, there was a competition for college teams to develop a more efficient SUV, called FutureTruck. Based on a Ford Explorer, one team was able to drastically cut emissions and obtain 45% better fuel economy: [url]http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?id=7622[/url] ALSO recently, a company called Ballard sucessfully drove a fuel cell powered vehicle across the country, to test it's performance in different climates. I'll try to find a link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:43:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Found an interesting fact I wanted to share here... Someone in a previous post, defending larger vehicles, said something to the point that 'SUVs don't pollute any more than other vehicles' Here's something from the EPA: Honda Insight CVT ...Less than 1 pound of smog emissions for every 15,000 miles GMC 1500 Sierra ....63.8 – 121.1 pounds of smog emissions for every 15,000 miles A GMC 1500 Sierra is still a superior vehicle. It's not worth trading down to the Insight for these pollution gains. This was brought up by someone in Houston pushing for the DMV to allow hybrid vehicles to use the HOV lanes. After all, the purpose of HOV lanes is to encourage carpooling to cut down on emissions. 2 people in a GMC 1500 is better than one in an Insight? Somebody's got their head screwed on backwards. They should allow the SUVs in the HOV lane and keep the hybrids in the main traffic. This will do an even better job of cutting down on emmisions. Also, recently, there was a competition for college teams to develop a more efficient SUV, called FutureTruck. Based on a Ford Explorer, one team was able to drastically cut emissions and obtain 45% better fuel economy: [url]http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?id=7622[/url] They don't say anything about the cost of the modifications to the vehicles. If I were to set up a competition, there would be a cap on the amount of money that can be spent or another method to bring cost into the equation. In the real world cost plays a real factor in the practicality of any product. ALSO recently, a company called Ballard sucessfully drove a fuel cell powered vehicle across the country, to test it's performance in different climates. I'll try to find a link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:57:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Also note that hybrids, like convential internal combustion enegine vehicles, only get their highest fuel economy ratings while at constant highway speeds. Drive a hybrid around town or in stop and go traffic and the fuel economy plummets precipitously. I've conversed with a Toyota prius owner who was experiencing low 20s mpg around town in Seattle. Again, not very impressive. I think hybrid technology is only a stepping stone to cleaner, more fuel efficient energy sources. Think fuel cell. You're correct boomer. I do think that hybrids are stop-gap. When fuel cells are more viable, we'll be using them. As far as in-town efficiency, the Prius owner you mentioned was probably doing something wrong. Those are a little different setup than the insight, and will get better economy in the city, than on the freeway. The Insight, while getting better mileage than the Prius in both situations, does get lower mileage in city driving. Most of my driving is city, and I consistantly get between 55 and 58mpg with little effort. The Civic Hybrid is more of the 'small gain' you mention. The non hybrid gets between 30-40mpg, whereas the hybrid gets between 40-50mpg, sometimes better. It's a marginal increase. New technology will follow, hopefully things like fuel cell/ pure electric vehicles with more useable range. Seattle = very hilly Texas = flat (I think) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 12:59:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: A GMC 1500 Sierra is still a superior vehicle. It's not worth trading down to the Insight for these pollution gains. When you're hauling stuff, or pulling a trailer, yes. When you're just driving yourself to work, no. We're talking commute here, nothing else. Somebody's got their head screwed on backwards. They should allow the SUVs in the HOV lane and keep the hybrids in the main traffic. This will do an even better job of cutting down on emmisions. Putting out 60-100 times more pollution? Hardly. Only if you get an SUV that carries 60-100 people. Simple math my friend. They don't say anything about the cost of the modifications to the vehicles. If I were to set up a competition, there would be a cap on the amount of money that can be spent or another method to bring cost into the equation. In the real world cost plays a real factor in the practicality of any product. Cost is a factor, yes. Think back when a 286 computer used to cost $5000. As technology gets to be more common, the price will go down. Simple fact. Has happened with every peice of technology ever put in the market. However, like I mentioned before, hybrid vehicles are stop-gap. There will be more effective things, like fuel cell vehicles, down the road! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 1:03:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Seattle = very hilly Texas = flat (I think) Central texas, where I am, is on the edge of what we call the 'Hill Country' You can guess why we call it that. It's flatter out to the west past the Hill country, and is also flatter to the east. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 1:24:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: When you're hauling stuff, or pulling a trailer, yes. When you're just driving yourself to work, no. We're talking commute here, nothing else. I used to drive a Hyundai Excel to work eveyday, now I drive a pickup. I won't go back to driving a dinky little car to work, even if you gave me a brand new one. Putting out 60-100 times more pollution? Hardly. Only if you get an SUV that carries 60-100 people. Simple math my friend. Simple Math my friend: Compare these two situations. Allow Insight to travel, delay SUV 10 min. Allow SUV to travel, delay Insight 10 min. Which scenario puts more total pollution into the atmosphere? (Hint: An idling SUV puts out more pollution and uses more gas than an idling Insight.) Also, the fuel and pollution efficiency of the Insight reduces the costs of driving alone and will reduce the amount of carpooling and increase the congestion on the roads. Cost is a factor, yes. Think back when a 286 computer used to cost $5000. As technology gets to be more common, the price will go down. Simple fact. Has happened with every peice of technology ever put in the market. However, like I mentioned before, hybrid vehicles are stop-gap. There will be more effective things, like fuel cell vehicles, down the road! Yes, in the long run costs will go down. I guess I am under the impression that the contest was intended to (or should) showcase technologies available in the short term, before prices are likely to change much. My method would also be more fair and inclusive because it would prevent the rich colleges from winning by purchasing doohickeys that the poorer colleges couldn't afford. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 5:55:10 PM EDT
[#44]
The first time I heard of hybrids was about 6 years ago. The founder of Compaq and his brother, a retired engineer at NASA, had a multifuel turbine, and used it to power electric motors on each wheel. It had a humongus flywheel generator in the trunk, that would keep spinning after the car was parked, and would keep a charge on the batteries. The turbine would turn on and off as necessary. By only running the motor when necessary, the car ran 1000 miles from a 15 gallon tank.
If I remember, the car was not publicized well at the time, because it was not considered an "alternative powered vehicle" by the over-sized electric golf cart school of car builders. The first test car converted began it's life as a Saturn, but to prove the technology could work on bigger vehicles, they were gutting a full size Mercedes (7 or 8 series) for their next conversion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 7:31:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Putting out 60-100 times more pollution? Hardly. Only if you get an SUV that carries 60-100 people. Simple math my friend. Simple Math my friend: Compare these two situations. Allow Insight to travel, delay SUV 10 min. Allow SUV to travel, delay Insight 10 min. Which scenario puts more total pollution into the atmosphere? (Hint: An idling SUV puts out more pollution and uses more gas than an idling Insight.) Also, the fuel and pollution efficiency of the Insight reduces the costs of driving alone and will reduce the amount of carpooling and increase the congestion on the roads. In the sitution your describing, the SUV would still put out astronomically higher amounts of pollution. And another thing about the Insight (and Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius), is that it doesn't idle. The engine stops when the car is slowed under 19mph, or when completely stopped. I think what you're trying to say is, if more people get vehicles that would be allowed to use the HOV lanes, that less people would carpool. That would be true in theory. I think, however, it would take quite a while to happen, as hybrid vehicle penetration into the consumer market is still quite low, but is steadily growing. I've seen a couple new hybrids (Insights and Prius') in the last couple weeks. What with the Honda Civic Hybrid, and the Prius both seating 5, carpooling is still feasible in those vehicles. The Insight is better when carpooling is not practical for the driver. Such is my situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2002 1:55:23 AM EDT
[#46]
When they make this a street bike that can last longer than a quarter mile I'll buy one.
Until then I'll keep the Otto Cycle. [img]http://www.killacycle.com/NewPackMS.jpg[/img] The KillaCycle [url]http://www.killacycle.com/[/url] World's Quickest Electric Motorcycle Official World record holder in the 1/4 mile drag. 9.450 seconds @152.07 mph [url]http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/[/url] Probably more than you wanted to know about electric cars. [url]http://www.nedra.com/[/url] National Electric Drag Racing Association (NEDRA) [img]http://www.1opossum.com/berube/pictures/ce4_087_medium.jpg[/img] Current Eliminator V |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
