New cars, or in this case... not.

[Datasaurusrex]

jtr1962: I have no problem with "educational" labeling requirements provided they are not blatantly biased. Well, maybe not just "education," but lableing requirements that list ingredients and known proven health effects. An informed consumer is desirable.

Having a requirement that you list transfat in food is far different than banning it via regulation.

 

[jtr1962]

Do you think the electrical energy that you use to charge a EV comes FREE FROM THE ETHOS?

No, I don't at all. However, if the energy for the EV is generated by solar, wind, hydroelectric, or nuclear then the entire cycle can be emissions-free. This doesn't mean that there aren't other harmful effects of these methods of power generation, either. Of course there are. Remember Chernobyl? Fact is mechanized society in one way or another destroys the environment. The idea is to not destroy it faster than it can repair itself. That is the essense of sustainable development.

Also note that even if 100% of the power for EVs comes from burning things there are still several advantages. First off, a giant power plant can wring about 60% of the energy contained in fossil fuel into electricity. A internal combustion engine can at best manage 15% or 20%. Second, the stationary plant can have much larger and more effective pollution controls than the car. Third and probably most important the power plant can be located in a remote area away from most people. Fossil fuel powered cars spew their pollution largely in population centers which is the last place you want it. I won't pretend EVs cause zero cancer deaths. However, my guess is if we went to 100% EVs the number of cancer deaths directly attibutable to road travel would drop by 99%. We would still have many cancer deaths from poor food, pollution from airliners, etc. Even putting aside cancer deaths, the quality of life in large cities, especially in hot weather when air quality is wost, would improve immeasureably (this all by itself is good reason to switch to EVs). Fourth, EVs will drastically reduce noise pollution, another huge problem in cities. Fifth, it's already been repeated ad nauseum here that widespread EV use wouldn't necessarily require more grid capacity. Most recharging would be done at night, when there is spare capacity and many electrical generating stations often just burn the excess power in resistors since they can't easily throttle down their output (especially true of nuclear plants).

One final point-I don't see EVs as a savoir in any sense. I'd rather see us travel less for a start, and then rely more on walking, biking, and public transportation before even considering taking a trip in an auto, EV or otherwise. However, it's unrealistic to expect such drastic changes anytime soon. We can engineer them over the next few generations by planning our cities better plus giving incentives. In the short term though, the EV is the best solution as it allows us to continue our lifestyle in a more sustainable way with little economic disruption.

 

[jtr1962]

jtr1962: I have no problem with "educational" labeling requirements provided they are not blatantly biased. Well, maybe not just "education," but lableing requirements that list ingredients and known proven health effects. An informed consumer is desirable.

Having a requirement that you list transfat in food is far different than banning it via regulation.

I agree-I don't think you should list things which aren't proven harmful by unbiased studies. Interesting also how the requirement to list transfat was as effective as a ban on it. This tells me that when consumers know something is bad, and the manufacturer must tell them if it's present, then they will push to have whatever it is eliminated. Mercury in fluorescent lamps is another thing which has been drastically reduced thanks to consumer awareness.

 

[Bimmerboy]

What? This discussion has now degenerated into car choice based how many cancer deaths it may or may not cause?! This is the framework of debate that gets set up... either I drive some nature-friendly car that I don't want, or I'm responsible for multiple times the cancer deaths otherwise? Nice try.

I have a feeling that could soon become my favorite smiley.

What did I mention before about guilt?

Can we get off the altruistic/collectivist fantasies of right and wrong for a moment, and have a real discussion please? I, for one, would be happy to continue participating if that happens.

 

[Datasaurusrex]

Yeah, and someone actualy calling nuclear energy a "emission free."

Geesh. the 'emissions' from nuclear power plants are with us for MILLIONS of years. That cave in Yucca Mountian is a joke. the hubris of thinking man can build ANY structure that will remain secure for 10,000 years is appalling.

Not to mention how safe we'll be when they are shipping highly radioactive waste via rail and trucks all across the country, geesh please.

 

[jtr1962]

What? This discussion has now degenerated into car choice based how many cancer deaths it may or may not cause?! This is the framework that gets set up... either I drive some nature-friendly car that I don't want, or I'm responsible for multiple times the cancer deaths otherwise? Nice try.

Why does driving a car you want and driving a car which is more eco-friendly and doesn't choke people on its fumes have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe you could give me an answer to that so we can continue.

For that matter why does it matter if you drive a car at all? If some other means existed to get where you're going which took the same or less time as driving and cost the same or less is there a good reason you wouldn't use it?

I think part of the problem is years of advertising by the auto industry has brought cars from simply another way to get from point A to point B to a status symbol and something that's supposed to be "fun". I personally fail to see how driving in the typical traffic patterns nowadays can be anything but aggravation regardless of what you're driving. In fact, give me a train anyday where I can just nod off to sleep until I get where I'm going.

And the line about cancer isn't collectivist/altruistic, either. You have the right to do whatever makes you happy-up until you cross the line where you interfere with my happiness. Cancer caused by junk from car exhaust will most certainly make me unhappy. It isn't about guilt but rather about violating my rights (and for that matter your own) to eat and breathe in an environment that doesn't poison you. Note that I can't blame you personally right now because you simply are not offered any non-exhaust spewing alternative by the auto makers. Rather, I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who make decisions regarding our energy policy for this.

On another note I find it amazing how we simply accept all the negatives associated with autos. If autos didn't exist and somebody proposed them as they exist now I highly doubt they would be allowed to sell them, nor would people accept having neighborhoods divided to make roads for them. Someone else here said as much in another thread.

I'm curious what are your solutions to the problem we're facing now since you obviously don't like any of the ones proposed by several people here? Or do you even think there's a problem (and I'm not refer to global warming at all, just the other ones I've mentioned)? It's really easy to either pretend a problem doesn't exist, or knock everyone else's solution, than to propose one of your own. In fact, that's mostly what our legislatures are great at doing.

I suppose I'm wasting my time here anyway. What would I know about markets or choices or capitalism? After all I'm just another pinko commie who wants to take away your car, your house, your capitalist trinkets, and then have you stand in bread lines for meager rations before I send any kids you may have off to die in glorious battle for the great motherland. Long live the revolution! Too bad there's no hammer and sickle to chose for my new favorite icon....

Maybe this one will do instead...

 

[ikendu]

Can we get off the altruistic/collectivist fantasies of right and wrong for a moment, and have a real discussion please? I, for one, would be happy to continue participating if that happens.

Sure, what would you like to discuss?

I started this thread to talk about a way to get the automobile companies to make vehicles to help us to get off of imported petroleum (because it seems to me that burning all of that imported petroleum threatens our environment, economic security and our national security). Any one of those three reasons seems sufficient to make this a priority. If I can find people that even just believe in one of the three, maybe we could get vehicles to take us in a different direction. My approach is a version of free market where we simply refuse to buy any new vehicles until they start producting what we want.

 

[Bimmerboy]

Sure, what would you like to discuss?

I started this thread to talk about a way to get the automobile companies to make vehicles to help us to get off of imported petroleum

If that must continue to be the basis of the thread, then I spoke too soon, and would not be happy to continue participating. The discussion is founded on non-reality. I too, could bring about a better world, if only people did as I wished.

At the end of the day, there is only one way to "get the automobile companies to make vehicles to help us to get off of imported petroleum", and that is by force, not free choice. The entire premise comes to a grinding halt the moment someone says... I don't want one of these EV things, I want a 500 horsepower Bimmer.

Thanks for the offer to discuss more, but I've been in more of these debates than I care to remember, and they inevitably come down to...

Man is greedy, man is selfish, and ultimately, evil. Mankind needs to be controlled and limited, by means guilt and self-abasement, with a little helping hand from the government.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

You've got one convert, Ikendu. I just got off the phone with the local Toyota dealer, and went just a bit farther than you asked. Told them that when a biodiesel Prius PHEV is available my wife and I will take one. I want something that'll burn renewable fuels; I'd rather burn five gallons of biodiesel than one gallon of gasoline.

I have a bit of a gripe with the so-called "hybrids" we have in this country, because they're not. They're a gas powered car, period. Although they have an exotic drivetrain they're still 100% gas powered. Now, a PHEV could indeed be called a hybrid.

:buddies:

 

[Bimmerboy]

Jtr - You made me laugh a bit with your last few statements. Not in a dismissive or insulting way, but because I can identify. I know the feeling of frustration well.

"Long live the revolution! Too bad there's no hammer and sickle to chose for my new favorite icon...."

LOL!... too funny.

Look, I'm not calling you a pinko commie, nor am I going to unless I understand more about you that would lead me to a definite conclusion. And then, I would do it in The Underground, not here. However, some of the things I've happened to see you talking about lately have a very familiar ring to them. And don't think for a second I forgot about your recent remark of how you'd feel more comfortable under a socialist/communist system. Of course, it's your right to feel that way, but I'm at a loss as to how not to take you at your word.

As far as knocking everyone else's solutions... well, there haven't been any that won't lead to force at the end of the road. As to asking me to make suggestions... suggestions for what? How to limit myself down to the lowest common denominator to help everyone in the world feel safe, healthy, and not bothered by anything so evil as car exhaust? No thanks, I'll pass.

Now, I'd be much happier in a discussion of ideas regarding a plan for when we run out of fossil fuels. That will happen, and would provide at least some foundation of reality to the debate.

Edit: One more thing. I couldn't let this pass, as it exactly pertains to my essential point regarding force.

Your quote - "You have the right to do whatever makes you happy-up until you cross the line where you interfere with my happiness."

Ahem... happiness is not a right.

"It isn't about guilt but rather about violating my rights (and for that matter your own) to eat and breathe in an environment that doesn't poison you."

That statement is so broad, philisophically, and legally, it needs it's own discussion. You cannot say such things without an explicitly defined context. However, assuming the context in which I think you mean, which would be the pleasure of walking down the street without being touched by any man-made substance you find offensive, that is not a right either.

 

[jtr1962]

Jtr - You made me laugh a bit with your last few statements. Not in a dismissive or insulting way, but because I can identify. I know the feeling of frustration well.

Yes, I made those "pinko commie" comments as an attempt to lighten up the thread a bit. I don't believe for a moment that you think of me that way. I also said I'd feel more comfortable under a socialist/communist system because I'm basically inept at earning a living under a capitalist one. I have no trouble impressing people when I do work for them but I'm totally clueless at marketing myself or my products. I'd do better under a system which took care of that aspect of it so I could concentrate on what I do best-design and engineering.

The truth is with regards to laws I'm a strange mix. I'm mostly free market but I think there should be certain minimum guaranteed standards of living in case the market fails. Call it economic socialism. As I mentioned I also favor some governmental help connecting people to positions they're suited for (but not forcing them to accept those positions if they don't want to). Not everyone is good or even competent looking for work, or selling themselves. Call that one maybe behavoiral socialism (i.e. not letting talented people fail because they lack the social skills to find employment). In other words, I'm open to helping people do things they need to do to survive. However, with most other things I'm a strong libertarian. Remember how I vociferously opposed speed limits in one thread for many (I thought) logical reasons? I'm also against things like drug laws, statuatory rape laws, laws in general which protect idiots from themselves. People should be free to do anything they want up until they physically harm the health or take the life of others. If they want to overdose on drugs, that's their perogative so long as they don't steal to finance their habit. Engage in consensual sex with a 13-year old? Fine so long as it really is consensual. Drive into a tree at 120 mph? Fine again so long as you don't kill others in the process. I tend to think I'm rather consistent in this line of thought across the board. This doesn't mean you have the right to be protected against things you find offensive, only things which definitely harm you like second hand smoke, auto exhaust, radiation from nuclear waste, etc. And of course only things under man's control. You can't expect anybody to protect you from a hurricane. I hope that answers the concern you expressed about that statement I said regarding not being poisoned.

Now I'd really be interested in your ideas for any plans once we run out of fossil fuels. I made a few suggestions along those lines (build more public transportation, design cities and towns so there is less need for mechanized travel in day-to-day activities). I'd like to hear anything you may have to say on this subject precisely because you're on the other side of the fence. The more I understand your point of view, the more maybe those on my side can come up with solutions to achieve our goals while not making you feel as if the solution is something rammed down your throat. And BTW, a 250 peak HP EV would blow away a 500 HP BMW at least acceleration-wise. And given proper aerodynamics probably on the top end as well.

 

[Bimmerboy]

Good post, jtr, and a lot of things to respond to... which I'll try to do concisely, but over morning coffee. A few more minutes enjoying my flashaholism, and it's off to bed at a reasonable hour for a change.

And BTW, a 250 peak HP EV would blow away a 500 HP BMW at least acceleration-wise. And given proper aerodynamics probably on the top end as well.

Only if it's half the weight. Although I must admit, with proper chassis and setup, the handling at that weight would be razor sharp.

But tell me this, are there any EV's in the forseeable future that can match anywhere near the beauty of that sound? Not to my musician ears. It's half the fun. Let's not even talk Ferrari. Gorgeous music. Fughedaboutit.

Don't be getting any funny ideas about having me play CD's of engine noise while driving an EV. That is not a solution... lol.

 

[Led_Blind]

How entertaining

 

[ikendu]

But tell me this, are there any EV's in the forseeable future that can match anywhere near the beauty of that sound?

So much of what seems right to us is what we are used to. When we first started putting Compact Flourescent Bulbs (CFBs) in our house, my wife said she'd only allow that in the fixtures that were hidden and you couldn't see the "funny looking spirals" of the CFBs. Now, several years later, we've gotten used to the "funny looking spirals" and we have them in all fixtures and don't think anything of it. I'm sure that if we had grown up with only CFBs, that "egg shaped" light bulbs would look strange to us.

I've seen a video clip from the inside of the car of Darell accelerating in his EV1. It was startling how the thing accelerated. There was no roar, just the smooth transmission of power to the rubber to the street. It seems likely if we'd only ever known EVs, that the roar associated with a gasoline engine would seem pretty strange to us. Ever coasted along on a nice bicycle and listened to the quiet whoosh of the tires and perhaps precise "ticking" of the chain and gears? There's no roar, but the feeling of motion is enhanced by those smaller sounds.

In any event, I'm willing to trade off a little "roar" for greater national security, a stronger economy and less pollution. There may always be people that buy "gas only" cars "that roar". I just hope it will be fewer and fewer as the years go by.

...[a 250 peak HP EV would blow away a 500 HP BMW at least acceleration-wise]...Only if it's half the weight.

Actually, much of what we associate with acceleration is produced by the torque and the speed with which that torque is delivered (not the HP). Electric motors develop maximum torque virtually instantly. Unlike a gasoline engine that must build up the torque with its rpms. My VW diesel only has 90 HP but is has as much torque as a V6 Accord. You can really feel it when you are pulling up a freeway ramp. Unfortunately for speed, diesels don't "spin up" their rpms as fast as a gasoline car so they don't normally accelerate as fast even though the torque is eventually there. Electric drive beats 'em both.

 

[ikendu]

...Told [Toyota] that when a biodiesel Prius PHEV is available my wife and I will take one.

Great! I've contacted Toyota US marketing and asked about flex fuel (biofueled) options for their vehicles (including the Prius). Their reply was sort of a head scratching ..."why are you asking that question?". It is surprising because Toyota was such a pioneer in the hybrid drive train (in spite of all of the scorn heaped on them by various representatives of the U.S. auto industry at the time).

 

[Bimmerboy]

Eeesh... got tied up this morning, so this won't be quite the post I was hoping to spend a little time on. Tomorrow morning will be free enough to do so. I'm still interested in responding to some points made.

I knew someone was going to mention electric's torque curve. I actually mentioned it at first, then edited it out because it detracted from the cuteness of my comment... lol.

In quick response to that though, with max torque almost instantly available, wheelspin is a big problem without digital launch control. The limitation being tire grip, with either electric or combustion engines. Grip is easily overtaken by either power source, so torque must be limited.

Without being an engineer of any sort, I would speculate that all things being equal (weight, chassis, tires, etc.), electric has little advantage.

As far as sound? I'm not sure how being "used" to a sound has any bearing on the point. In fact, I really like the sound of powerful electric motors as well. Never met any "high performance" sound I didn't like.

This is going to be a very weak analogy, but I'm now pressed for time. I like many different styles of music. But the fact I listen mostly to modern, heavy rock, with super-fast guitar playing, does not make the great classical music of Mozart or Rachmaninoff any less amazing. I find that most rock can't even HOPE to match the high level of talent and beauty of those composers' compositions, despite that I'm wayyyy more "used to" rock.

Anyway, it's that time for me. Until tomorrow.... exit... stage left.

 

[ikendu]

Bimmerboy wrote:

...electric's torque curve.

In quick response to that though, with max torque almost instantly available, wheelspin is a big problem without digital launch control. The limitation being tire grip, with either electric or combustion engines. Grip is easily overtaken by either power source, so torque must be limited.

Without being an engineer of any sort, I would speculate that all things being equal (weight, chassis, tires, etc.), electric has little advantage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My issue isn't that you can't build a great performing gasoline car, clearly you can. I just wanted to point out that Horse Power isn't what really maters. It is torque, plenty off it, delivered quickly. Light weight of course helps. My comments are just based on tested performance of real EVs:

Wright Speed X1 prototype (0-60 3 sec.):
http://www.wrightspeed.com/x1.html

AC Propulsion TZero (0-60 3.6 sec.):
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/performance.htm

Tesla Motors prototype (0-60 4 sec.):
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Even the production GM EV1 "commuter car" did 0-60 in about 8 sec. (not bad for a production vehicle using batteries and drive electronics that are obsolete based on today's technology).

 

[gadget_lover]

Don't be getting any funny ideas about having me play CD's of engine noise while driving an EV. That is not a solution... lol.

I guess most people don't realize that the wonderous noise is a deliberate tuning of the exhaust. It does not have to sound like that. An atrificial arrangement of resonators give it that sound.


But back on subject: When Toyota announced that they were going to import the Prius, I went to the dealer every six months or so and asked if it was available yet. I gave them my name and number. The dealer pretty much knew that he could sell at least one if he could get it to his dealership.

There's no reason why the same would not work for other changes. I'd like to see some small EVs just for short commutes / in town. I guess I should start bugging them for that next.

And to the nay-sayers.... Have you ever wondered why so many grcoery stores ask "Did you find everything today" as a greeting? They know that they can't sell what they don't stock, and that their competitors may have what you want. Telling the dealers what you want can help.

IMHO

Daniel

 

[ikendu]

Here is a new plug-in hybrid announcement from GM:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/01/07/detroit_chevrolet_volt_concept/index.html

 

[ikendu]

You're trying to create a market for a non-existant product??

After watching the GM video on the new Chevy Volt concept car, I feel like we are little closer to having a real PHEV that can run on biofuels once the batteries need charging.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1166