|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793434] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 15:58 |
|
On Feb 7, 4:36=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > What about Aptera's own web site?
>
> =A0 I find it a bit short on details. =A0But that is typical of sites that=
have
> something to sell that doesn't yet exist.
So you admit that even the Aptera doesn't yet exist.
Next, you'll have to admit that their mileage claims are still
artificially inflated by not including the battery's charge.
>
> =A0 I wish them luck. but am sad that they will fail so badly.
>
> >> =A0 That assertion is yours - my lying little Mother Fucker - not mine.=
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > I wouldn't fuck your mother with your dick.
>
> Let me rephrase so that your small brain can comprehend....
>
> The assertion is yours - you lying little boy who fucks his own mother.
False statement, asslick.
> It
> was not my assertion.
Lie.
> .
> Do you understand now?
>
I understand that you're an intellectually dishonest troll.
> > weiej.4221$jU1.3... [at] read1.cgocable.net
> > "The existacne of a =A02000+ vehicle illustrates how detached from reali=
ty
> > that KKKonservative Liar is."
>
> =A0 Yup, it most certainly does. =A0The claim was that such a vehicle coul=
dn't
> exist in principle - as it's existance would violate basic engine design
> principles.
>
> =A0 Well, such a vehicle exists, and that makes him (and you) either a lia=
r,
> or a fool.
Prove that such a vehicle exists, or admit you're wrong and STFU.
>
> =A0 =A0Which is it Nate? =A0Are you a liar? =A0Or are you a fool? =A0Both =
perhaps?
>
> =A0 =A0Now go ask your mother little boy. =A0She knows what you are.
I'm not the one lying and looking foolish, although I suppose it would
be too much to expect you to admit a false statement once you're
called on it.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793590 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 02:19 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> So you admit that even the Aptera doesn't yet exist.
Are you suggesting that because the Aptera doesn't exist battery powered
cars can't exist?
The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.
Why is that N8N?
> > weiej.4221$jU1.3... [at] read1.cgocable.net
> > "The existacne of a 2000+ vehicle illustrates how detached from reality
> > that KKKonservative Liar is."
>
> Yup, it most certainly does. The claim was that such a vehicle couldn't
> exist in principle - as it's existance would violate basic engine design
> principles.
>
> Well, such a vehicle exists, and that makes him (and you) either a liar,
> or a fool.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Prove that such a vehicle exists, or admit you're wrong and STFU.
AHAHAHAHa you are quite the moron aren't you. What preipitated the
discussion was my positng of an article that
congratulated Canadian University Students for producing just such a
vehicle.
http://www.sae.org/news/releases/gasmileage.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793591 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 02:35 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>So you admit that even the Aptera doesn't yet exist.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that because the Aptera doesn't exist battery powered
> cars can't exist?
I never said they *can't* exist, I said that a practical battery powered
car does not exist at this time.
>
> The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
> forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.
The EV-1 was discontinued because it *wasn't* practical, not without
legislation (namely, California's ZEV mandate.) It wasn't affordable -
all the units were leased, and estimates of cost (to GM) of each vehicle
are in the neighborhood of $80K apiece. Certainly GM didn't make any
money on the program, even if you discount their massive investment in
R&D necessary to get to the point where they could build it. Would
*YOU* pay $100K or more for a vehicle with approximately a 100 mile
range and takes several hours to refuel, and has completely uninspiring
performance and severely limited passenger and cargo capacity? Not many
people would.
GM most likely chose the lease program with no option to buy route
rather than simply selling the vehicles to the public at a massive loss
because they didn't want the responsibility of complying with Federal
requirements to stock replacement parts for years after the car was
discontinued, and undoubtedly they also feared backlash from consumers
confronted with the high replacement cost of battery packs etc. should
they fail in use (and they probably would have.)
> Why is that N8N?
See above. Your obviously sincere wish for practical electric vehicles
to be available does not necessarily imply that mean, bad old Big
Industry is suppressing some world saving technology out of greed (such
rumors are not new, DAGS on the Fish carburetor...) it just means that
the technology has not caught up with our ability to imagine something
better. Despite the massive resources of GM (and others) behind the
effort to change that situation. It's clear you like to hate on GM, and
I'm not a big fan either, but their actions with respect to the EV-1
program are perfectly understandable, and I give them big props for
trying the experiment in the first place.
>
>>>weiej.4221$jU1.3... [at] read1.cgocable.net
>>>"The existacne of a 2000+ vehicle illustrates how detached from reality
>>>that KKKonservative Liar is."
>>
>>Yup, it most certainly does. The claim was that such a vehicle couldn't
>>exist in principle - as it's existance would violate basic engine design
>>principles.
>>
>>Well, such a vehicle exists, and that makes him (and you) either a liar,
>>or a fool.
>
>
>
> "N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>Prove that such a vehicle exists, or admit you're wrong and STFU.
>
>
> AHAHAHAHa you are quite the moron aren't you. What preipitated the
> discussion was my positng of an article that
> congratulated Canadian University Students for producing just such a
> vehicle.
>
> http://www.sae.org/news/releases/gasmileage.htm
SAE Supermileage vehicles have more in common with a skateboard than
they do what we know as a "car." Try again. Or better yet, don't.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793598 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 03:36 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I never said they *can't* exist, I said that a practical battery powered
> car does not exist at this time.
Only because the automotive industry refuses to build them. EV1 being a
prime example of the corruption in the AmeriKKKan automotive industry.
There are of course no shortage of kits available for converting cars to
electirc operation. The motors and charging equipment and mounts cost as
little as a couple of thousand bucks and mount directly to the existing
drive train of the target vehicles.
Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive industry
can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a vehicle
(EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then crushed them
in the middle of the night?
>> The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
>> forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> The EV-1 was discontinued because it *wasn't* practical, not without
> legislation (namely, California's ZEV mandate.) It wasn't affordable -
> all the units were leased, and estimates of cost (to GM) of each vehicle
> are in the neighborhood of $80K apiece.
Well that's what you get when you make a limited run of luxury vehicles
and then refuse to sell them and then refuse to advertise them.
The users of those vehicles loved them. And ultimately that is why they
were destroyed while still in prime working condition. They were a threat
to GM's aftermarket service business. They were far too reliable.
>> Why is that N8N?
>
> See above. Your obviously sincere wish for practical electric vehicles to
> be available does not necessarily imply that mean, bad old Big Industry is
> suppressing some world saving technology out of greed (such rumors are not
> new, DAGS on the Fish carburetor...) it just means that the technology has
> not caught up with our ability to imagine something better.
And yet Paggeo this summer will release a 3 wheeled hybred scooter based
on it's MP3 design capable of highway speeds that gets 175 mpg.
For the average commuter no gasoline would be burned at all as the first
20 or so miles would be driven entirely in electic mode.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793599 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 03:55 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I never said they *can't* exist, I said that a practical battery powered
>>car does not exist at this time.
>
>
> Only because the automotive industry refuses to build them. EV1 being a
> prime example of the corruption in the AmeriKKKan automotive industry.
>
> There are of course no shortage of kits available for converting cars to
> electirc operation. The motors and charging equipment and mounts cost as
> little as a couple of thousand bucks and mount directly to the existing
> drive train of the target vehicles.
>
And yet they are not practical for the average person, otherwise we'd
all be driving them. I've seen the kinds of vehicles that you refer to;
typically something like a Ford Fiesta, VW Rabbit, Porsche 914, or other
very small, light car retrofitted with big, heavy lead-acid batteries
and with limited range and speed. I'd actually be happy with any of the
cars I mentioned in stock form (well, I've owned both a Rabbit GTI and a
914...) but they would become absolutely worthless to me if converted to
electric. I don't have any facility for charging (although I'm handy
enough to hook that up if that were the only impediment) and more
importantly, often I have to drive 200 miles or more in a single day. I
also have only a 240V/200 amp service at my house (and the garage
subpanel is only 100A,) which is the largest likely to be seen in any
residence, so if the state-of-the-art in battery/capacitor/whatever
technology advanced to the point where a true quick charge (10 minutes
or less) were available, I would likely have to add a dedicated service
just to charge my car. No thanks...
> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive industry
> can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a vehicle
> (EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then crushed them
> in the middle of the night?
The EV-1 was not practical for most people. The only people who ever
leased them in the first place were the people to whom the shortcomings
of the EV-1 didn't matter, so of course they remember them favorably. I
personally wouldn't relish being stuck on the Beltway after running out
of juice in the middle of the day. I already explained why the EV-1 was
discontinued, and why GM chose to crush them, but you prefer to stick to
your conspiracy theories. Why *wouldn't* GM sell all the EV-1s it could
build, if it thought it could sell them at a profit? They could
certainly use the business these days, as it appears that they're in a
serious sales battle with Toyota.
>>>The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
>>>forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>The EV-1 was discontinued because it *wasn't* practical, not without
>>legislation (namely, California's ZEV mandate.) It wasn't affordable -
>>all the units were leased, and estimates of cost (to GM) of each vehicle
>>are in the neighborhood of $80K apiece.
>
>
> Well that's what you get when you make a limited run of luxury vehicles
> and then refuse to sell them and then refuse to advertise them.
Luxury? Wow. Your delusion knows no bounds.
>
> The users of those vehicles loved them. And ultimately that is why they
> were destroyed while still in prime working condition. They were a threat
> to GM's aftermarket service business. They were far too reliable.
Exactly wrong. GM crushed them while they were *still* reliable, before
they had a chance to need expensive battery pack replacements and thus
acquire a bad reputation.
You'll note that GM also carefully screened the people to whom they
would lease the EV-1, so that they were sure that the lessees would not
be inconvenienced by the shortcomings of the EV-1.
>>>Why is that N8N?
>>
>>See above. Your obviously sincere wish for practical electric vehicles to
>>be available does not necessarily imply that mean, bad old Big Industry is
>>suppressing some world saving technology out of greed (such rumors are not
>>new, DAGS on the Fish carburetor...) it just means that the technology has
>>not caught up with our ability to imagine something better.
>
>
> And yet Paggeo this summer will release a 3 wheeled hybred scooter based
> on it's MP3 design capable of highway speeds that gets 175 mpg.
>
> For the average commuter no gasoline would be burned at all as the first
> 20 or so miles would be driven entirely in electic mode.
>
"scooter" /= "car." And quite a few people live farther than 10 miles
away from their workplace.
Don't get me wrong, I think that my goals and yours somewhat align, as
delusional and unpleasant as you are. However, you are going to have to
accept sooner or later that we can only work with the tech that we have,
not the tech that we want - or need. Thus, if we really do *need*
ultra-efficient vehicles, we ought to be funding more research into
ultracapacitors, fuel cells, anything that shows promise as a truly
dense, easily/quickly charged storage medium - not to mention more
electrical generating capacity.
The quick charge is key, not only for convenience, but to take full
advantage of regen braking for max efficiency.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793613 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 05:43 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> Only because the automotive industry refuses to build them. EV1 being
>> a prime example of the corruption in the AmeriKKKan automotive industry.
>>
>> There are of course no shortage of kits available for converting cars
>> to electirc operation. The motors and charging equipment and mounts cost
>> as little as a couple of thousand bucks and mount directly to the
>> existing drive train of the target vehicles.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> And yet they are not practical for the average person, otherwise we'd all
> be driving them.
Quite impossible, since they (almost) all been destroyed even though they
were in perfect working condition.
How do drive something that was purposely destroyed for being too
successful?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I've seen the kinds of vehicles that you refer to; typically something
> like a Ford Fiesta, VW Rabbit, Porsche 914, or other very small, light car
> retrofitted with big, heavy lead-acid batteries and with limited range and
> speed.
Battery choice is up to the owner. The kits generally provide the
electric motor, connectors to the heat exchanger, physical connection to the
power train, and the power regulator and computer control.
Speed is equivalent to the automobile before conversion.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I don't have any facility for charging (although I'm handy enough to hook
> that up if that were the only impediment) and more importantly, often I
> have to drive 200 miles or more in a single day.
Don't have a wall socket ay?
200 miles per day is not what typical commuter requires. Typically you
can reduce that by a factor of 10.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I also have only a 240V/200 amp service at my house (and the garage
> subpanel is only 100A,) which is the largest likely to be seen in any
> residence, so if the state-of-the-art in battery/capacitor/whatever
> technology advanced to the point where a true quick charge (10 minutes or
> less) were available, I would likely have to add a dedicated service just
> to charge my car. No thanks...
Full charge time is 8 hours, so again you overestimate the requirements by
2 orders of magnitude.
>> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive
>> industry can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a
>> vehicle (EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then
>> crushed them in the middle of the night?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> The EV-1 was not practical for most people.
Actually it was entirely practical for most people. A cursory survey of
cars on the road show that they have one occupant only.
The EV1 was not optimal of course, because it was designed to be a
failure. But like everything else from the worthles U.S. automotive
industry, it wasn't designed well enough to fulfill it's goals - in this
case to fail - so since it was an engineering success it had to be taken
from it's users and secretly destroyed in the middle of the night.
>> Well that's what you get when you make a limited run of luxury vehicles
>> and then refuse to sell them and then refuse to advertise them.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Luxury? Wow. Your delusion knows no bounds.
Body Type: Aluminum alloy structure joined with welds, rivets and structural
adhesive
Dent/Corrosion-Resistant Composite Exterior Panels: Hood, doors, roof and
trunklid (Sheet Molding Compound [SMC]); front fenders, rear quarter panels,
rocker panels, rear-wheel skirts, aerodynamic bellypan (Reinforced Reaction
Injection Molding [RRIM] polyurethane)
Body panels are 100% recyclable and very lightweight
Steering Type: Electro-hydraulic, power rack-and-pinion (speed-sensitive,
variable-effort)
Braking System: Electro-hydraulic, power-assisted front and electric rear
with blended regenerative and anti-lock features
Wheels: 14-in. aluminum alloy
Anti-lock braking system (ABS)
Traction control
Check tire pressure system
Air bags* and three-point shoulder/lap seatbelts
Projector lowbeam/reflector optic highbeam headlights
Daytime running lamps (DRL)
Electronic keypad entry/vehicle activation system with programmable personal
identification number
Power windows, door locks and dual outside mirrors
Cruise control with downgrade and upgrade speed regulation
Premium AM/FM stereo with cassette and CD player, four speakers and digital
clock
Computer-controlled "heat pump" climate control system with preconditioning
feature and CFC-free air conditioning refrigerant; new electric heater
Center-mounted vacuum fluorescent instrumentation
Interior courtesy lights with delayed shutoff feature
Solar reflective/absorptive glass
Intermittent windshield wipers with washer system
Remote hood and trunklid releases
Four-way adjustable bucket seats with lightweight alloy frames
Carpeted floor mats
Carpeted cargo area with cargo net
0-60 mph acceleration in less than 9 seconds
Standard: High-capacity lead-acid battery pack - 55 to 95 miles per
charge*
Optional: Nickel-metal hydride battery pack - 75 to 130 miles
per charge*
Standard: High-capacity lead-acid battery pack - 5.5 to
6 hours using the 220-volt (6.6kW) charger;
22 to 24 hours using the 110-volt (1.2kW)
convenience charger
Optional: Nickel-metal hydride battery pack - 6 to 8 hours using
the 220-volt (6.6kW) charger
>> The users of those vehicles loved them. And ultimately that is why
>> they were destroyed while still in prime working condition. They were a
>> threat to GM's aftermarket service business. They were far too reliable.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Exactly wrong. GM crushed them while they were *still* reliable, before
> they had a chance to need expensive battery pack replacements and thus
> acquire a bad reputation.
Battery replacement was trivial, and the cars were designed for it. And
the users knew what the replacement costs would be. Most tried to purchase
the cars from GM, but GM refused to sell them, refused to tell them where
their cars went, and then crushed them in the middle of the night.
>> And yet Paggeo this summer will release a 3 wheeled hybred scooter
>> based on it's MP3 design capable of highway speeds that gets 175 mpg.
>>
>> For the average commuter no gasoline would be burned at all as the
>> first 20 or so miles would be driven entirely in electic mode.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> "scooter" /= "car." And quite a few people live farther than 10 miles
> away from their workplace.
Then they can get an enclosed version that gets 150 Mpg and run the
gasoline engine for 15 minutes a day.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Don't get me wrong, I think that my goals and yours somewhat align, as
> delusional and unpleasant as you are. However, you are going to have to
> accept sooner or later that we can only work with the tech that we have,
> not the tech that we want - or need. Thus, if we really do *need*
> ultra-efficient vehicles, we ought to be funding more research into
> ultracapacitors, fuel cells, anything that shows promise as a truly dense,
> easily/quickly charged storage medium - not to mention more electrical
> generating capacity.
I agree. But the failure in not having automobiles that fill the
commuter niche is a result from a refusal of AmeriKKKan Automakers to build
them. Just as they refuse to build reliable vehicles. Doing so would
reduce their profits.
The AmeriKKKan automobile industry is dead as a result. The Indian,
Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and European industries will now produce the
vehicles that the AmeriKKKan industry claimed was impossible.
The faster and more harshly the AmeriKKKan industry is destroyed the
better.
Crime deserves Punishment.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> The quick charge is key, not only for convenience, but to take full
> advantage of regen braking for max efficiency.
Regenerative breaking energy is already stored in ultracapacitors.
Battery technology <MIGHT> be able to almost replace gasoline in terms of
energy density <IF> methods can be found to bring to the industrial scale
the nano-fabrication methods needed to increase the surface area of the
battery plates.
As it stands 40 mph, 2 seaters, 4 feet wide, 8 feet long are the only
rational target available.
Checkout the Paggeo MP3 while your at it.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793629 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:32 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
>The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
>forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.
Too bad that comment is full of partisan spin rather than simple
facts.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793630 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:37 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>See above. Your obviously sincere wish for practical electric vehicles
>to be available does not necessarily imply that mean, bad old Big
>Industry is suppressing some world saving technology out of greed (such
>rumors are not new, DAGS on the Fish carburetor...) it just means that
>the technology has not caught up with our ability to imagine something
>better. Despite the massive resources of GM (and others) behind the
>effort to change that situation. It's clear you like to hate on GM, and
>I'm not a big fan either, but their actions with respect to the EV-1
>program are perfectly understandable, and I give them big props for
>trying the experiment in the first place.
*applause*
Nobody else has put a completely electric car in consumers' hands for
long term testing. Those cars were leased and at the end of the
leases, were returned. Some leases were extended.
GM took the cars back, examined them and then naturally crushed them
into scrap. One of the principle concerns was fire damage from
overheated cables. Many of the returned cars show melted and burned
insulation on power cables.
GM learned a lot from the EV1. Expect a much improved version at some
later date. In the meantime, they're working on other projects.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793631 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:39 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
> Only because the automotive industry refuses to build them. EV1 being a
>prime example of the corruption in the AmeriKKKan automotive industry.
>
> There are of course no shortage of kits available for converting cars to
>electirc operation. The motors and charging equipment and mounts cost as
>little as a couple of thousand bucks and mount directly to the existing
>drive train of the target vehicles.
>
> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive industry
>can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a vehicle
>(EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then crushed them
>in the middle of the night?
Have you seen these "cars" built by amateurs? They don't comply with
safety standards and certainly aren't anything I'd want to drive.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793632 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:40 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> Well that's what you get when you make a limited run of luxury vehicles
>> and then refuse to sell them and then refuse to advertise them.
>
>Luxury? Wow. Your delusion knows no bounds.
Surely he's not referring to the EV1 as a luxury car? Lol!
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793633 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:42 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> The users of those vehicles loved them. And ultimately that is why they
>> were destroyed while still in prime working condition. They were a threat
>> to GM's aftermarket service business. They were far too reliable.
>
>Exactly wrong. GM crushed them while they were *still* reliable, before
>they had a chance to need expensive battery pack replacements and thus
>acquire a bad reputation.
And before they had a chance to catch fire or explode. Can you
imagine the legal repercussions of a battery pack exploding acid all
over a driver on a hot summer day in heavy traffic?
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793634 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:44 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>The quick charge is key, not only for convenience, but to take full
>advantage of regen braking for max efficiency.
Quick charging is essential for any long distance travel. No way I
could use an electric to go to my Dad's in Florida for example. It
would take ten days to make the trip and back given recharge times and
where would I recharge it?
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793635 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:44 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
> How do drive something that was purposely destroyed for being too
>successful?
That's not why they were destroyed.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793642 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:13 |
|
> "V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
> the sand to babble
>>The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
>>forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Too bad that comment is full of partisan spin rather than simple
> facts.
What isn't factual? That they were taken from their users? Or that they
were crushed?
Where can I find someone who is still leasing one? And in which garage is
it stored?
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793643 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:16 |
|
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> GM took the cars back, examined them and then naturally crushed them
> into scrap.
Ahahahahah,,, naturally.
GM is in the habit of selling damaged cars that are involved in train wrecks
and falling off the transport frames. But these perfectly fine electric
vehicles were taken from their users and crushed for no particular reason.
Naturally of course. It happens all the time.
Ahahahahahahahahaahahah...........
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793644 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:18 |
|
>> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive
>> industry
>>can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a vehicle
>>(EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then crushed
>>them
>>in the middle of the night?
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Have you seen these "cars" built by amateurs? They don't comply with
> safety standards and certainly aren't anything I'd want to drive.
I have. They use standard frames and bodies and hence have essentially the
same impact characteristics as the car from which they are made.
The difference is that the 500 lb gas engine is replaced by a 50 lb
electric motor with roughly equivalent HP.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793645 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:18 |
|
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Surely he's not referring to the EV1 as a luxury car? Lol!
It most certainly was.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793646 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:20 |
|
>>Exactly wrong. GM crushed them while they were *still* reliable, before
>>they had a chance to need expensive battery pack replacements and thus
>>acquire a bad reputation.
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> And before they had a chance to catch fire or explode.
What was the defect that made them destined to catch fire and explode?
Catchig fire and exploding is something that commonly happens to Gasoline.
Not Lead Acid Batteries.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793648 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:21 |
|
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Quick charging is essential for any long distance travel. No way I
> could use an electric to go to my Dad's in Florida for example.
Then you had better find another way of getting there Sap cause in 20
years you are gonna be going 40mpg in a 40mpg all electic highway.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793649 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:25 |
|
> "V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
> the sand to babble
>> How do drive something that was purposely destroyed for being too
>>successful?
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> That's not why they were destroyed.
There just ain't no way to rape the Public selling replacements for made
to fall apart parts like automotive exhaust systems when your electric car
just ain't got any,.
No specialty motor oils needed. No fuel filters, no air filters, no tune
ups, no carborator parts to sell, no replacement transmissions to sell no
broken oil pans to replace, no alternators to blow out, no circulating pumps
to replace, etc. etc. etc.
GM was in the position of making a car that was going to put it out of
business.
So it crushed them all.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793664 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 14:45 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>> Only because the automotive industry refuses to build them. EV1 being
>>>a prime example of the corruption in the AmeriKKKan automotive industry.
>>>
>>> There are of course no shortage of kits available for converting cars
>>>to electirc operation. The motors and charging equipment and mounts cost
>>>as little as a couple of thousand bucks and mount directly to the
>>>existing drive train of the target vehicles.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>And yet they are not practical for the average person, otherwise we'd all
>>be driving them.
>
>
> Quite impossible, since they (almost) all been destroyed even though they
> were in perfect working condition.
>
> How do drive something that was purposely destroyed for being too
> successful?
How do you reason with a k00k who's clearly delusional?
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I've seen the kinds of vehicles that you refer to; typically something
>>like a Ford Fiesta, VW Rabbit, Porsche 914, or other very small, light car
>>retrofitted with big, heavy lead-acid batteries and with limited range and
>>speed.
>
>
> Battery choice is up to the owner. The kits generally provide the
> electric motor, connectors to the heat exchanger, physical connection to the
> power train, and the power regulator and computer control.
OK, so what batteries can I put in my EV that will provide the same
energy density as gasoline? Or even within the same order of magnitude,
as the EV will be more efficient and therefore might only need 30-40% as
much energy storage.
>
> Speed is equivalent to the automobile before conversion.
Really? Even after I double the weight with batteries?
How about luggage space?
Keep in mind that I'd already be driving a car that most people consider
unacceptably small to begin with...
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>> I don't have any facility for charging (although I'm handy enough to hook
>>that up if that were the only impediment) and more importantly, often I
>>have to drive 200 miles or more in a single day.
>
>
> Don't have a wall socket ay?
>
> 200 miles per day is not what typical commuter requires. Typically you
> can reduce that by a factor of 10.
Typically *I* cannot. If I only went from my home to the office and
back, I'd still be driving over 30 miles a day. But I can't ever count
on that being all the driving I have to do.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>> I also have only a 240V/200 amp service at my house (and the garage
>>subpanel is only 100A,) which is the largest likely to be seen in any
>>residence, so if the state-of-the-art in battery/capacitor/whatever
>>technology advanced to the point where a true quick charge (10 minutes or
>>less) were available, I would likely have to add a dedicated service just
>>to charge my car. No thanks...
>
>
> Full charge time is 8 hours, so again you overestimate the requirements by
> 2 orders of magnitude.
Well, yeah, it is *now,* but to be practical it should be on the order
of 10 minutes or so. Either that or battery capacity needs to be
greatly increased.
>>> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive
>>>industry can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a
>>>vehicle (EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then
>>>crushed them in the middle of the night?
>
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>The EV-1 was not practical for most people.
>
>
> Actually it was entirely practical for most people. A cursory survey of
> cars on the road show that they have one occupant only.
So? You're still neglecting range and charge time. Also a vehicle that
expensive (if sold at a price that made a profit) would likely be the
*only* vehicle of its owners so it really needs room for at least four.
>
> The EV1 was not optimal of course, because it was designed to be a
> failure. But like everything else from the worthles U.S. automotive
> industry, it wasn't designed well enough to fulfill it's goals - in this
> case to fail - so since it was an engineering success it had to be taken
> from it's users and secretly destroyed in the middle of the night.
Yes, of course, even thought nobody else has made a practical EV either,
it's GM's fault for giving it an honest effort and still coming up a
little short. k00K-a-doodle-doo!
>
>>> Well that's what you get when you make a limited run of luxury vehicles
>>>and then refuse to sell them and then refuse to advertise them.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Luxury? Wow. Your delusion knows no bounds.
>
>
> Body Type: Aluminum alloy structure joined with welds, rivets and structural
> adhesive
<snip>
there's no point in trying to explain why an EV-1 is not a luxury car to
you, as you're clearly delusional. However, even someone who owned and
liked one would never agree with you.
>
>>> The users of those vehicles loved them. And ultimately that is why
>>>they were destroyed while still in prime working condition. They were a
>>>threat to GM's aftermarket service business. They were far too reliable.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Exactly wrong. GM crushed them while they were *still* reliable, before
>>they had a chance to need expensive battery pack replacements and thus
>>acquire a bad reputation.
>
>
> Battery replacement was trivial, and the cars were designed for it. And
> the users knew what the replacement costs would be. Most tried to purchase
> the cars from GM, but GM refused to sell them, refused to tell them where
> their cars went, and then crushed them in the middle of the night.
Because it would have cost GM even MORE money to sell the cars than it
did to recall and crush them. Haven't you been paying attention?
>>> And yet Paggeo this summer will release a 3 wheeled hybred scooter
>>>based on it's MP3 design capable of highway speeds that gets 175 mpg.
>>>
>>> For the average commuter no gasoline would be burned at all as the
>>>first 20 or so miles would be driven entirely in electic mode.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>"scooter" /= "car." And quite a few people live farther than 10 miles
>>away from their workplace.
>
>
> Then they can get an enclosed version that gets 150 Mpg and run the
> gasoline engine for 15 minutes a day.
>
It's still not a car.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I think that my goals and yours somewhat align, as
>>delusional and unpleasant as you are. However, you are going to have to
>>accept sooner or later that we can only work with the tech that we have,
>>not the tech that we want - or need. Thus, if we really do *need*
>>ultra-efficient vehicles, we ought to be funding more research into
>>ultracapacitors, fuel cells, anything that shows promise as a truly dense,
>>easily/quickly charged storage medium - not to mention more electrical
>>generating capacity.
>
>
> I agree. But the failure in not having automobiles that fill the
> commuter niche is a result from a refusal of AmeriKKKan Automakers to build
> them. Just as they refuse to build reliable vehicles. Doing so would
> reduce their profits.
>
Yes, it's all a grand conspiracy. whatever helps you sleep at night.
> The AmeriKKKan automobile industry is dead as a result. The Indian,
> Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and European industries will now produce the
> vehicles that the AmeriKKKan industry claimed was impossible.
Well, why aren't they doing so now? Perhaps because it *is*
impossible... at least today? (hopefully not tomorrow or the day after,
though.)
>
> The faster and more harshly the AmeriKKKan industry is destroyed the
> better.
>
> Crime deserves Punishment.
The faster you get help, the better. You've got serious issues.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>The quick charge is key, not only for convenience, but to take full
>>advantage of regen braking for max efficiency.
>
>
> Regenerative breaking energy is already stored in ultracapacitors.
really? Most mainstream hybrids just dump the energy into the batteries.
> Battery technology <MIGHT> be able to almost replace gasoline in terms of
> energy density <IF> methods can be found to bring to the industrial scale
> the nano-fabrication methods needed to increase the surface area of the
> battery plates.
>
Key word: might. It's a worthy goal, but we're not there yet.
> As it stands 40 mph, 2 seaters, 4 feet wide, 8 feet long are the only
> rational target available.
>
Too bad, you were starting to sound almost rational there for a bit.
> Checkout the Paggeo MP3 while your at it.
An interesting machine, but not a car.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793665 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 14:49 |
|
Governor Swill wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
>>See above. Your obviously sincere wish for practical electric vehicles
>>to be available does not necessarily imply that mean, bad old Big
>>Industry is suppressing some world saving technology out of greed (such
>>rumors are not new, DAGS on the Fish carburetor...) it just means that
>>the technology has not caught up with our ability to imagine something
>>better. Despite the massive resources of GM (and others) behind the
>>effort to change that situation. It's clear you like to hate on GM, and
>>I'm not a big fan either, but their actions with respect to the EV-1
>>program are perfectly understandable, and I give them big props for
>>trying the experiment in the first place.
>
>
> *applause*
>
> Nobody else has put a completely electric car in consumers' hands for
> long term testing. Those cars were leased and at the end of the
> leases, were returned. Some leases were extended.
>
> GM took the cars back, examined them and then naturally crushed them
> into scrap. One of the principle concerns was fire damage from
> overheated cables. Many of the returned cars show melted and burned
> insulation on power cables.
>
> GM learned a lot from the EV1. Expect a much improved version at some
> later date. In the meantime, they're working on other projects.
>
> Swill
Actually the Chevy Volt looks pretty promising and the latest word is
that it will actually be built circa 2010.
Could it be that GM will actually release a product that doesn't look
like it was designed by a four year old with his head up his ass? (yes,
I'm looking at YOU, Escalade) I'm surprised the poster to whom I was
replying never brought that up.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793666 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 14:52 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive
>>>industry
>>>can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a vehicle
>>>(EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then crushed
>>>them
>>>in the middle of the night?
>
>
>
> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
>
>>Have you seen these "cars" built by amateurs? They don't comply with
>>safety standards and certainly aren't anything I'd want to drive.
>
>
> I have. They use standard frames and bodies and hence have essentially the
> same impact characteristics as the car from which they are made.
>
> The difference is that the 500 lb gas engine is replaced by a 50 lb
> electric motor with roughly equivalent HP.
>
and 1200 lbs. of batteries.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793667 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 14:53 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
>
>>Surely he's not referring to the EV1 as a luxury car? Lol!
>
>
> It most certainly was.
>
Hey Swill, keep in mind that this is the same guy that said an Aptera
was "about the same size as a Mini Cooper." Clearly he's delusional
and/or simply has no ability to judge distance/volume.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793705 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 23:36 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Hey Swill, keep in mind that this is the same guy that said an Aptera was
> "about the same size as a Mini Cooper."
Which it is. Have you managed to learn some grade school physics yet
Nate?
When are you going to retract your claim that in an accident Force isn't
important, but acceleration is?
Ahahahahahahahahahaahha.... MMMMOOOOOORRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793708 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 23:43 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Hey Swill, keep in mind that this is the same guy that said an Aptera was
>>"about the same size as a Mini Cooper."
>
>
> Which it is.
It most certainly is not, your babble notwithstanding.
> Have you managed to learn some grade school physics yet
> Nate?
Yes, and high school physics, college level physics, and a BSME (that's
Mechanical Engineering to you, mister) as well.
> When are you going to retract your claim that in an accident Force isn't
> important, but acceleration is?
I'm not going to, because I'm right and you're 100% wrong.
> Ahahahahahahahahahaahha.... MMMMOOOOOORRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Yes, you most certainly are, and apparently very proud of it.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793709 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 23:58 |
|
>> The difference is that the 500 lb gas engine is replaced by a 50 lb
>> electric motor with roughly equivalent HP.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> and 1200 lbs. of batteries.
If they are lead acid yup. But that would be stupid in a production
vehicle wouldn't it?
I suppose that's why you select it.
The weight of batteries required is no more than about three times the
weight of gasoline carried.
And of course in a production vehicle direct drive wheels would be used,
so you not only lose the weight of the engine, but of the entire drive
train. the transmission goes, as does all of the mechanical linkages to the
wheels.
So you lose the weight of the engine, transmission, drive train,
mechanical breaks, the alternator, the engine compartment battery, and the
heavy metal supports needed to hold those pieces in place.
Additionally, without an engine you don't need an engine compartment. So
you can keep the passenger compartment the same size (bad idea), and then
you can lop off an area of vehicle about the same size as the engine
compartment - about 1/3rd of the car saving 25% of the material and dropping
another 500 -800 lbs.
So in total you can lose about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the car. 1/2 if it's a two
seater, and if its a commuter then you can inline the seats to reduce drag,
and reduce the thing by another 30%. - Slightly smaller than a Smart car.
That is the optimum practical size.
Single person subcompacts can be as small as two motorcycles sitting side
by side. Three wheels - entirely enclosed. the Aptera is rougly the right
concept by in an unusual form factor.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793711 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 00:08 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Actually the Chevy Volt looks pretty promising and the latest word is that
> it will actually be built circa 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBXK4EE7Lg8
Check out the above link. Excellent advertisement for a car ay?
With advertising like that they are absolutely guaranteeing that their plan
to destroy thier
product will be as much of a success as GM's plan to destroy their EV1.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793713 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 00:10 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote in message
news:fokb0t128ui [at] news2.newsguy.com...
> Governor Swill wrote:
> Actually the Chevy Volt looks pretty promising and the latest word is that
> it will actually be built circa 2010.
The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid concept car created by General
Motors. However, the company has avoided the use of the term "hybrid,"
preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a "range extender" due to its
design.[2] The vehicle is designed to run purely on electricity from
on-board batteries for up to 40 miles (64 km) -which is a large enough
distance to cover the daily commutes of most Americans, which is around 25
miles (40 km).
Now what were you saying about an 80 mile range not being large enough?
MOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793715 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 00:19 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> How do you reason with a k00k who's clearly delusional?
What were you saying about not needing speed limits on roads and highways?
Moooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnn....
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> OK, so what batteries can I put in my EV that will provide the same energy
> density as gasoline?
Nope. But then it doesn't need to.
>> Speed is equivalent to the automobile before conversion.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Really? Even after I double the weight with batteries?
I suppose that if YOU take it upon YOURSELF to double the weight of the
batteries then YOU are a MORON who is RESPONSIBLE for LOWERING the rate of
acceleration of YOUR vehicle.
Moooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnn nnn.
> How about luggage space?
Without an engine compartment you could double that of course, but that
would be stupid. Much better to move the
luggage compartment to the front and lop off the back third of the car,
reducing the weight by about 1/4
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Keep in mind that I'd already be driving a car that most people consider
> unacceptably small to begin with...
And that's why the U.S. auto industry is bankrupt. Intellectually and
financially.
MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNN
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793716 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 00:20 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> The difference is that the 500 lb gas engine is replaced by a 50 lb
>>>electric motor with roughly equivalent HP.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>and 1200 lbs. of batteries.
>
>
> If they are lead acid yup. But that would be stupid in a production
> vehicle wouldn't it?
>
> I suppose that's why you select it.
well, what else are you going to use? Lead-acid is what's available.
>
> The weight of batteries required is no more than about three times the
> weight of gasoline carried.
>
Cite? (I can't WAIT for this one.)
> And of course in a production vehicle direct drive wheels would be used,
> so you not only lose the weight of the engine, but of the entire drive
> train. the transmission goes, as does all of the mechanical linkages to the
> wheels.
can't do that for $1500, then, as you'll have to redesign the
suspension. Also DAGS for "unsprung weight."
> So you lose the weight of the engine, transmission, drive train,
> mechanical breaks, the alternator, the engine compartment battery, and the
> heavy metal supports needed to hold those pieces in place.
>
And more than make up for it in batteries.
> Additionally, without an engine you don't need an engine compartment. So
> you can keep the passenger compartment the same size (bad idea),
No, GOOD idea. If people wanted smaller passenger compartments, cars
would be made with smaller passenger compartments.
> and then
> you can lop off an area of vehicle about the same size as the engine
> compartment - about 1/3rd of the car saving 25% of the material and dropping
> another 500 -800 lbs.
>
for $1500? Really?
Heck, I'd like to know where I could just get a decent paint job for
$1500. No bodywork, just prep and paint.
> So in total you can lose about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the car. 1/2 if it's a two
> seater, and if its a commuter then you can inline the seats to reduce drag,
> and reduce the thing by another 30%. - Slightly smaller than a Smart car.
>
> That is the optimum practical size.
>
According to you.
Most people reject the Smart as being too small to be practical, so I
don't know why you would want to make something even smaller. But, of
course, "about the same size as a Mini Cooper."
> Single person subcompacts can be as small as two motorcycles sitting side
> by side. Three wheels - entirely enclosed. the Aptera is rougly the right
> concept by in an unusual form factor.
>
It's an interesting concept, but just that.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793717 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 00:26 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:fokb0t128ui [at] news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>Governor Swill wrote:
>>Actually the Chevy Volt looks pretty promising and the latest word is that
>>it will actually be built circa 2010.
>
>
> The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid concept car created by General
> Motors. However, the company has avoided the use of the term "hybrid,"
> preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a "range extender" due to its
> design.[2] The vehicle is designed to run purely on electricity from
> on-board batteries for up to 40 miles (64 km) -which is a large enough
> distance to cover the daily commutes of most Americans, which is around 25
> miles (40 km).
>
> Now what were you saying about an 80 mile range not being large enough?
>
> MOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
>
>
Obviously Chevy doesn't think it's enough, otherwise they wouldn't have
added the weight and complexity of all the series-hybrid hardware. I
have a feeling that GM has more people who are in tune with what
consumers actually want and need than some pimply-faced Canuck living in
his parents' basement, smoking pot, and ranting on Usenet (including the
usual predictable tired cliches) about how the military-industrial
complex is fucking up the world so a few nebulous, unnamed fat old white
men can grow rich at the planet's expense. Not that there's not a grain
of truth to that, but you really need to get a firmer grip on reality.
Here's another hint: if you really want to *do* something about the
problem, how's about you go get yourself an engineering or science
education and DO something about the energy storage problem instead of
stamping your feet and holding your breath until everyone agrees with
you that it doesn't exist?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793730 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 02:22 |
|
>> The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid concept car created by General
>> Motors. However, the company has avoided the use of the term "hybrid,"
>> preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a "range extender" due to
>> its design.[2] The vehicle is designed to run purely on electricity from
>> on-board batteries for up to 40 miles (64 km) -which is a large enough
>> distance to cover the daily commutes of most Americans, which is around
>> 25 miles (40 km).
>>
>> Now what were you saying about an 80 mile range not being large enough?
>>
>> MOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Obviously Chevy doesn't think it's enough, otherwise they wouldn't have
> added the weight and complexity of all the series-hybrid hardware.
They presume that it will take time to toilet train the apes.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I have a feeling that GM has more people who are in tune with what
> consumers actually want and need than some pimply-faced Canuck living in
> his parents' basement, smoking pot, and ranting on Usenet (including the
> usual predictable tired cliches) about how the military-industrial complex
> is fucking up the world so a few nebulous, unnamed fat old white men can
> grow rich at the planet's expense.
My parents are long dead John Boy, and I don't have a basement. As to the
Military Industrial Complex, well I hope you enjoy the feeling as it
continues to suck 1 to 2 trillon dollars from AmeriKKKa's back pocket.
Snicker.
As to GM knowing what the market wants, I must agree, it's loss of market
standing and the subsequent closure of manufacturing plants, and real
financial losses while efficient vehicles from Japan and North Korea and
Europe take over, says much about their ability to read the market.
Ahahahahahahahaha.......... Are you sure you want to use that laughable
tact in an attempt to support your lunacy?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Not that there's not a grain of truth to that, but you really need to get
> a firmer grip on reality. Here's another hint: if you really want to *do*
> something about the problem, how's about you go get yourself an
> engineering or science education and DO something about the energy storage
> problem instead of stamping your feet and holding your breath until
> everyone agrees with you that it doesn't exist?
The energy storage problem is solvable only with chemistry and
nano-engineering. And that will come into play in
perhaps 30 years.
Far too distant to save your ass.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793735 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 02:54 |
|
>> If they are lead acid yup. But that would be stupid in a production
>> vehicle wouldn't it?
>>
>> I suppose that's why you select it.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> well, what else are you going to use? Lead-acid is what's available.
And so is sulfer iron, lithium ion, and Nickle Metal Hydride.
>> The weight of batteries required is no more than about three times the
>> weight of gasoline carried.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Cite? (I can't WAIT for this one.)
Gasoline 45 megajouls per Kilogram.
Lithium Ion 0.6 megajoules per kilogram
Gasoline engine efficiency 25%
Electric motor efficience 95%
Air resistsnce redction (40mph) = 2.25
Rolling resistance reduction due to a reduction in car size by 50%, 15%
Acceleration requirements reduce by 50% when mass is reduced by 50%
(0.6 * 95/25 * 2.25 * 2 * 1.15) * FACTOR = 45
Fractor = 3.81
Woo Hooo.....
>> And of course in a production vehicle direct drive wheels would be
>> used, so you not only lose the weight of the engine, but of the entire
>> drive train. the transmission goes, as does all of the mechanical
>> linkages to the wheels.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> can't do that for $1500, then, as you'll have to redesign the suspension.
> Also DAGS for "unsprung weight."
Your right, very difficult for such a mahine to be hand assembled by
enthusiasts.
And that is what keeps corporations complicit in the crime.
Now I thought you said that if such machines could be made they would be.
Nope. A Corrupt Industry prevents their construction preferring to suck
as much money from your pocket as possible
>> So you lose the weight of the engine, transmission, drive train,
>> mechanical breaks, the alternator, the engine compartment battery, and
>> the heavy metal supports needed to hold those pieces in place.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> And more than make up for it in batteries.
Hardly. A 50 litre gas tank holds 37 kilograms of fuel, 3.8 times that is
140 kilograms or about 308 lbs. less than the the weight of the engine it's
replacing, let alone the rest of the mechanical garbage needed to attach the
nonsenst tot the wheels.
Mechanical gears? Ahahahahahahaa..... Apes....
>> Additionally, without an engine you don't need an engine compartment.
>> So you can keep the passenger compartment the same size (bad idea),
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> No, GOOD idea. If people wanted smaller passenger compartments, cars
> would be made with smaller passenger compartments.
What apes want isn't really relevant. You Apes will accept what nature
will afford to provide youi and if you don't like it then there will always
a bullet available to convince you.
>> and then you can lop off an area of vehicle about the same size as the
>> engine compartment - about 1/3rd of the car saving 25% of the material
>> and dropping another 500 -800 lbs.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> for $1500? Really?
Oh, the savings will be even larger. Building all that greasy mechanical
Bullshit that is held together by spit and luck can be dumpted in the
garbage can where it belongs.
Two motors, two pumps, and a computer control system in a vehicle that
contains 1/2 of the structural materials required before and which is mostly
made from composites or aluminum rather than something that is purposely
designed to rust away and fail in order to force you to purchase a
replacement.
TATA NANO - $2,500
Shows you how much of GM's cock you have up your ass.
>> So in total you can lose about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the car. 1/2 if it's a
>> two seater, and if its a commuter then you can inline the seats to reduce
>> drag, and reduce the thing by another 30%. - Slightly smaller than a
>> Smart car.
>>
>> That is the optimum practical size.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> According to you.
TATA NANO - $2,500
Shows you how much of GM's cock you have up your ass.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Most people reject the Smart as being too small to be practical, so I
> don't know why you would want to make something even smaller. But, of
> course, "about the same size as a Mini Cooper."
Smart, isn't electric. YET. So it suffers from the same problems as every
other Grease Box on wheels.
>> Single person subcompacts can be as small as two motorcycles sitting
>> side by side. Three wheels - entirely enclosed. the Aptera is rougly
>> the right concept by in an unusual form factor.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> It's an interesting concept, but just that.
Flying machines? Impossible.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793753 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 06:42 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> It most certainly is not, your babble notwithstanding.
Clearly it is.
>> Have you managed to learn some grade school physics yet Nate?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Yes, and high school physics, college level physics, and a BSME (that's
> Mechanical Engineering to you, mister) as well.
And you still don't know that F=ma.
The fact that you don't know that Force is what drives Acceleration, is
either an indicaiton of a worthless education or a worthless lie on your
part.
Which is it?
>> When are you going to retract your claim that in an accident Force
>> isn't important, but acceleration is?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I'm not going to, because I'm right and you're 100% wrong.
Your right that in a collison force isn't important, acceleration is?
Ahahahahahahahahahahaah...................
Tell us my little incompetent. Does acceleration produce force, or does
force produce acceleration.
Ahahahahahahahahahah.............. Engineer...
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha........
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793806 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 23:25 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> If they are lead acid yup. But that would be stupid in a production
>>>vehicle wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> I suppose that's why you select it.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>well, what else are you going to use? Lead-acid is what's available.
>
>
> And so is sulfer iron, lithium ion, and Nickle Metal Hydride.
Nowhere near as widely, inexpensively, or of a size required to power a
vehicle.
>
>>> The weight of batteries required is no more than about three times the
>>>weight of gasoline carried.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Cite? (I can't WAIT for this one.)
>
>
> Gasoline 45 megajouls per Kilogram.
> Lithium Ion 0.6 megajoules per kilogram
Oh, no, you can't do that. Unless you can show that a car-sized LiIon
or other style high-density battery pack is available at a reasonable price.
Keep in mind that prices for a conventional fuel tank range from
negligible for a typical blow-molded plastic deal to a couple hundred
bucks for a race-style fuel cell with bladder.
Getting my numbers from Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know,
but I'm just scribbling on a cocktail napkin here, so to speak) a good
lead-acid battery pack is about 0.1 mJ/kg. I don't know where you're
pulling your numbers from, but the same table lists LiIon as about 0.25
mJ/kg, so you're heavily fudging your calcs in favor of the batteries
right off the bat. Your number for gasoline, however, is close enough
to be accurate enough for these purposes.
> Gasoline engine efficiency 25%
> Electric motor efficience 95%
Why not use a Diesel? and I would say for a newer vehicle closer to 30%
but never mind that for now.
> Air resistsnce redction (40mph) = 2.25
Nope, can't do that. Vehicle has to be compatible with existing
infrastructure.
> Rolling resistance reduction due to a reduction in car size by 50%, 15%
Nope, people won't buy a car half the size of what they're driving now.
> Acceleration requirements reduce by 50% when mass is reduced by 50%
Can't do that either. If for no other reason than you *won't* reduce
mass because the batteries will make the vehicle weigh MORE than the
comparable gasoline vehicle.
> (0.6 * 95/25 * 2.25 * 2 * 1.15) * FACTOR = 45
>
> Fractor = 3.81
>
> Woo Hooo.....
In other words, you're comparing a practical yet not-very-efficient
gasoline car to a hypothetical impractical, vaguely car-like machine
that uses super batteries that haven't been invented yet. Good show.
let's just handwave and say that an electric motor is about 3x as
efficient as a gasoline engine (fair approximation.) Thus from the
numbers above, to store the same amount of energy as gasoline, you need
450/3 or *ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY* times the mass in batteries as you
would for an equivalent gas tank (neglecting the mass of the tank
itself, which is negligible) if you use lead acid, or let's say you
spent the big bucks for LiIon, that would still be *SIXTY* times the
mass of gasoline.
Some savings, eh? Now let's say that your hypothetical car has a 15
gallon gas tank; when full, it weighs (15 gallons) (6.1 lb/us gal) or
about 90 lbs. give or take an RCH. 60 times that is 5400 lbs - more
than most cars! So obviously, we simply cannot produce an electric
vehicle with currently available battery technology that can ever hope
to compete with a gasoline engined car. The best we can do is slash
range (cutting battery capacity in half would cut 2700 lbs from our
hypothetical LiIon powered car) save weight elsewhere (as you correctly
pointed out, by optimizing the design around not needing a bulky engine
or transmission - although a basic manual transmission really does not
weigh all that much) and hope that consumers will be willing to accept
the compromises. And even so you can't claim a weight reduction,
because likely your range-compromised design will weigh MORE than the
gas burner you started with.
It would appear, by the lack of mainstream acceptance of pure battery
powered cars (and even plug-in hybrids) that the public do not accept
this as a practical product, as a whole.
Just completely handwaving from the above, you could build a somewhat
practical vehicle with a range somewhere from 1/4 to 1/2 that of a
gasoline car which would still weigh about the same as a gas car or
slightly more, and would have to use ultra-lightweight materials and
construction techniques and be fairly stripped-down and Spartan to get
to that point. At a price significantly higher than the gas burner.
Hey, sounds a lot like our friend the EV-1.
>
>>> And of course in a production vehicle direct drive wheels would be
>>>used, so you not only lose the weight of the engine, but of the entire
>>>drive train. the transmission goes, as does all of the mechanical
>>>linkages to the wheels.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>can't do that for $1500, then, as you'll have to redesign the suspension.
>>Also DAGS for "unsprung weight."
>
>
> Your right, very difficult for such a mahine to be hand assembled by
> enthusiasts.
And there are very good reasons for not doing so at all; unsprung weight
is a huge deal when it comes to ride and handling. There's very good
reasons for still keeping a single, central powerplant and distributing
power to the wheel hubs through a conventional
differential-and-driveshaft layout.
> And that is what keeps corporations complicit in the crime.
What crime would that be? Not bankrupting themselves by devoting their
resources to producing a product nobody can use or is willing to buy?
> Now I thought you said that if such machines could be made they would be.
And as I have shown above they cannot.
> Nope. A Corrupt Industry prevents their construction preferring to suck
> as much money from your pocket as possible
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SRwwYWlbP2U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FXv5UsSLIiA
>>> So you lose the weight of the engine, transmission,
you still haven't made up for the battery pack.
>>>drive train,
can't do that, unless you want a vehicle that rides like a coal cart, is
hard to steer, and handles like ass. Ref: unsprung weight, above.
>>>mechanical breaks,
I'm going to assume you mean "brakes," and you can't do that either -
not only is it a seriously bad idea to rely on regen braking completely,
but NHTSA won't let you. And for once I won't bash NHTSA on that one, a
lack of redundant braking capability is just fuckin' stupid and
irresponsible. And they're really not that heavy.
>>> the alternator, the engine compartment battery, and
>>>the heavy metal supports needed to hold those pieces in place.
Oh, yeah, those motor mounts weigh a ton *snork*
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>And more than make up for it in batteries.
>
>
> Hardly. A 50 litre gas tank holds 37 kilograms of fuel, 3.8 times that is
> 140 kilograms or about 308 lbs. less than the the weight of the engine it's
> replacing, let alone the rest of the mechanical garbage needed to attach the
> nonsenst tot the wheels.
>
> Mechanical gears? Ahahahahahahaa..... Apes....
As you can see from the above, your number of "3.8" is utterly and
completely rectal and means nothing.
>>> Additionally, without an engine you don't need an engine compartment.
>>>So you can keep the passenger compartment the same size (bad idea),
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>No, GOOD idea. If people wanted smaller passenger compartments, cars
>>would be made with smaller passenger compartments.
>
>
> What apes want isn't really relevant. You Apes will accept what nature
> will afford to provide youi and if you don't like it then there will always
> a bullet available to convince you.
Ooh, threats from the Usenet big man.
How you gonna get down here to shoot me in your little electric golf
cart? Assuming you could build it, which clearly you have neither the
brains, education, or experience to do.
But you'll have to shoot more than me if you're going to shoot everyone
who thinks that a two seat golf cart is an acceptable commuter vehicle.
>
>>>and then you can lop off an area of vehicle about the same size as the
>>>engine compartment - about 1/3rd of the car saving 25% of the material
>>>and dropping another 500 -800 lbs.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>for $1500? Really?
>
>
> Oh, the savings will be even larger. Building all that greasy mechanical
> Bullshit that is held together by spit and luck can be dumpted in the
> garbage can where it belongs.
How much does a battery pack cost again?
> Two motors, two pumps, and a computer control system in a vehicle that
> contains 1/2 of the structural materials required before and which is mostly
> made from composites or aluminum rather than something that is purposely
> designed to rust away and fail in order to force you to purchase a
> replacement.
>
> TATA NANO - $2,500
>
> Shows you how much of GM's cock you have up your ass.
And how is the Nano relevant to our discussion of electric vehicles?
The only thing that price tag shows is that when your labor is cheap so
is your product. This is Not News. China's been working that theory
for a long time now.
>>> So in total you can lose about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the car. 1/2 if it's a
>>>two seater, and if its a commuter then you can inline the seats to reduce
>>>drag, and reduce the thing by another 30%. - Slightly smaller than a
>>>Smart car.
>>>
>>> That is the optimum practical size.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>According to you.
>
>
> TATA NANO - $2,500
>
> Shows you how much of GM's cock you have up your ass.
How much demand do you predict that there will be in this country for
one? As you can see, the Smart has been pretty much a dismal failure in
CAnada which is a very similar market to the US.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Most people reject the Smart as being too small to be practical, so I
>>don't know why you would want to make something even smaller. But, of
>>course, "about the same size as a Mini Cooper."
>
>
> Smart, isn't electric. YET. So it suffers from the same problems as every
> other Grease Box on wheels.
Yes, which are relatively few nad far between. Its major failings in
the market are its small size and large price.
>
>>> Single person subcompacts can be as small as two motorcycles sitting
>>>side by side. Three wheels - entirely enclosed. the Aptera is rougly
>>>the right concept by in an unusual form factor.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>It's an interesting concept, but just that.
>
>
> Flying machines? Impossible.
What do flying machines have to do with the price of tea in China? My
point was that if the Aptera does become commercially available it will
still have a very limited market, as it is not practical for most
people. I wish them well, because it is good that somebody's working
out the bugs in preparation for the day when the energy storage problem
is solved, but we're nowhere near there yet.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793833 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:57 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
> No specialty motor oils needed. No fuel filters, no air filters, no tune
>ups, no carborator parts to sell, no replacement transmissions to sell no
>broken oil pans to replace, no alternators to blow out, no circulating pumps
>to replace, etc. etc. etc.
>
> GM was in the position of making a car that was going to put it out of
>business.
>
> So it crushed them all.
The crushed them because it was an experimental model that wasn't
ready for mainstream sales.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793834 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:58 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> 200 miles per day is not what typical commuter requires. Typically you
>> can reduce that by a factor of 10.
>
>Typically *I* cannot. If I only went from my home to the office and
>back, I'd still be driving over 30 miles a day. But I can't ever count
>on that being all the driving I have to do.
Ditto. My trip is 26 miles each way.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793835 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:59 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> Full charge time is 8 hours, so again you overestimate the requirements by
>> 2 orders of magnitude.
>
>Well, yeah, it is *now,* but to be practical it should be on the order
>of 10 minutes or so. Either that or battery capacity needs to be
>greatly increased.
When was the last time it took you ten minutes to fill a twenty gallon
gas tank?
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics [message #793836 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:59 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> The EV1 was not optimal of course, because it was designed to be a
>> failure. But like everything else from the worthles U.S. automotive
>> industry, it wasn't designed well enough to fulfill it's goals - in this
>> case to fail - so since it was an engineering success it had to be taken
>> from it's users and secretly destroyed in the middle of the night.
>
>Yes, of course, even thought nobody else has made a practical EV either,
>it's GM's fault for giving it an honest effort and still coming up a
>little short. k00K-a-doodle-doo!
It was a highly successful experiment, but an experiment still.
Swill
|
|
|
|
