| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793377] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 03:09 |
|
>> M1V1+M2V2 = M1V11+M2V22
>>
>> -M1(V11-V1) = M2(V22-V2)
>> -M1dV1 = M2dV2
>>
>> (M1/M2)*dV1 = - dV2
>>
>> Hence it is the <RATIO:> of the two car masses that is important, not the
>> absolute value of either of the masses separately.
>>
>> On the other hand, starting and stopping efficiency is directly
>> proportional
>> to the mass of the car. Half the mass and you half the energy needed to
>> accelerate the car.
>>
>> Globally reducing the masses of all cars on the road by 50% thereby
>> increases the efficieny of the fleet by reducing the energy needed to
>> accelerate the car, while at the same time keeping the M2/M1 ratio (and
>> hence safety factor) constant.
>>
>> In addition lighter vehicles can be made out of lighter, less ridged,
>> materials.
>>
>> Lose 50 lbs in the engine and you might lose another 25lbs on the frame,
>> which means you have a lowered HP requirement and hence can use a smaller
>> engine to get the same acceleration so now your engine displacement can
>> go
>> down, and you might lose another 5 on the engine, and another 2.5 on the
>> frame, etc.. etc.. etc...
>>
>> Weight is decreaed, but as long as this is consistant across the entire
>> fleet, safety remains the same while efficiency goes up.
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote
> I know all of that (except the part about "ridged" materials).
If you knew it then you wouldn't ask the following question sinc you would
know that it is moronic.
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote
> What did it have to do with your claim that larger vehicles aren't safer?
You just finished saying that you knew that this wasn't the case.
Stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuppppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddddddddddd dd
|
|
|
