Project for the Next Generation of Vehicles

In article >, Magnulus wrote:
> I remember this around 1994. All I remembered was I was in highschool
> and early college, and Al Gore and Bill Clinton were talking about a car
> that could get 85 mpg.

It was nothing more than poltical crapola.

> I remember around 1995 seeing news on TV with
> college researchers building prototypes of cars that got really good gas
> mileage- they had giant flywheels, electric motors, small engines, etc.

The flywheel car has thus far been a failure. Most of the these cars you
see from research are too stripped down and too restrictive on operation for
even 'judy' to drive.

> Well, it turns out the whole thing was a giant smokescreen. During this
> ten year period from 1994-2004, the American auto industry implemented very
> little of the improvements from their research. Instead, they created the
> modern SUV fad,

The SUV fad started in the late 80s.

> and average miles per gallon actually decreased. And the
> government, worst of all, gave them over a billion dollars of taxes to play
> around with, with no accountability in the end. Sure, some money was
> implemented to study electric battery technology, lighter vehicle design,
> hybrid powertrains and hydrogen fuel cells, but very little found it's way
> into real cars.

Most of these alternatives have continued to have serious failings.

> It's shameful that in 2005 there are only really two or three models of
> hybrid cars to choose from (the Honda Insight doesn't count, it's a joke-
> and about to be discontinued), and NONE of the powertrains are American
> designed.

Because there isn't the market demand for these particular types of cars
and hyrid car technology is only good enough to produce cars with a level
of performance that is barely acceptable for this class. And since this
is a money saving class, the standard gasoline powered civic is cheaper
to operate than the honda hybrids.

> To boot, demand for hybrid cars far exceeds the production,
> meaning that people who actually want a hybrid car will face long waits and
> few choices, price gouging, etc. The ONLY reason Toyota is building the
> Prius is in low numbers is because they obviously don't intend for it to be
> anything but a marketting device to enhance their image as a "green company"
> . If they were serious about hybrids, they would have started rapidly
> implementing them into all their cars. They've had nearly 4 years to do so.

Renewable oil (processes which turn waste products like pig crap and
turkey guts into crude oil) will probably be a reality before
the required breakthroughs in battery technology that hybrids require.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:27:55 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> And you notice those small cars are not selling - its the big SUV's you
>see
>> beside you in the parking lot that are selling.
>>
>
> If the hybrid cars weren't selling, then the demand wouldn't be
>outstripping the supply.

C.mon now, its just that the supply is low. If there were hybrids in the
numbers that SUV's are on the sales lots, they'd be there a very long time.
People want a lot of space with alot of power, and to be able to haul stuff.

Sure, if you only put 3 models of hybrids out there, then there's going to be
enough people to buy 'em. If there were 30 models, they wouldn't sell very
well.

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You want better mileage? Lower the speed limit. That would also save
> thousands of lives a year and billions of $.
>
Hey, I got an idea! Let's limit the cars to no more than walking pace. To
ensure that this is followed, make it compulsory for a person to walk in
front, waving a red flag...

Oh, it's been tried. Maybe the idea's time has come again!

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because there isn't the market demand for these particular types of cars
> and hyrid car technology is only good enough to produce cars with a level
> of performance that is barely acceptable for this class.

Just how good do people need- how much horsepower? What's wrong with 0-60
in ten seconds, exactly?

I have driven a Honda Civic Hybrid and the car handles quite well (the
Prius is harder to find, so I have not driven one yet). Of course, I was
driving within the speed limit and I was just basicly cruising, not really
trying to pass everybody. The car got around 40mpg just in a test drive.

> And since this
> is a money saving class, the standard gasoline powered civic is cheaper
> to operate than the honda hybrids.

Cheaper to buy? Definitely. Cheaper to own? No. I don't see how they
would be cheaper to operate, being as the cost of gassing it up will be
about 20-25 percent more for the regular Civic. The CVT will also probably
incur no more wear than a regular automatic transmission (CVT is after all a
fairly old technology). And the batteries are ordinary nickle metal hydride
batteries, just like what would go into any number of electric appliances
and gadgets people use.

> Renewable oil (processes which turn waste products like pig crap and
> turkey guts into crude oil) will probably be a reality before
> the required breakthroughs in battery technology that hybrids require.

Hybrid cars don't require any breakthroughs in battery technology.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> In a world full of sloths, it's not enough to only be as fast as
> everybody else; you've got to be FASTER.

Oh, I get it... you don't like pokey drivers. Or are you just kidding?

>
> In a world where asshole LLBs speed up to prevent you from passing
> them, then slow down again once you've given up the attempt, you need
> OVERWHELMING FORCE to get past them quickly and safely so you can
> proceed peacefully on your way. You need POWER to merge safely onto
> the freeway even though the territorial old hat-wearing goat in the
> Chrysler Newport speeds up to try to block your merge.

You make it sound like driving is a war or contest.

>
> The cost-benefit analysis has been performed many times. It will take
> YEARS to recover the extra cost of buying the hybrid vehicle through
> fuel cost savings - by which time the original batteries will have
> worn out and will need to be replaced

The batteries last about 180,000 miles. Toyota's conservative estimate
is that it takes about 4 years to recoup the cost of buying a Prius vs. a
Camry (I'm not sure what gas price they are using to figure that out- maybe
it was 1.50 a gallon, but around here gas is 2 dollars per gallon). And if
the price of gas goes up, it will take less time to recoup the cost.

There are other cost-benefits to consider. Like, what do you consider the
value of clean air, or reduced carbon emissions?

>. Have you priced a replacement
> set of batteries for a Prius lately?

No, but like I was saying, they are just ordinary batteries stacked up in
a series inside of a box. I'd imagine it wouldn't be that hard to find
which batteries are defective, and replace them. I'd imagine at 180,000
miles alot of folks will be trading in their car or scraping it, too.

In article >, Magnulus wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Because there isn't the market demand for these particular types of cars
>> and hyrid car technology is only good enough to produce cars with a level
>> of performance that is barely acceptable for this class.

> Just how good do people need- how much horsepower? What's wrong with 0-60
> in ten seconds, exactly?

First, I don't recall a hybrid that fast. They seem to be about as fast
as my torqueless wonder car on accerlation. The TW is a worn out mid 80s
4 cylinder sedan. I would estimate it's zero to 60 at around 14 seconds.

Because of sloths on the road, horsepower, well torque actually is
required. When someone who thinks merging into 70mph traffic at 35mph is
a good idea and uses up most of the ramp space, it's nice to still be
able to accelerate up to a safe merging speed.

If everywhere was like Germany where the majority knew how to drive, then
it wouldn't be a big deal, this is the USA.

> I have driven a Honda Civic Hybrid and the car handles quite well (the
> Prius is harder to find, so I have not driven one yet). Of course, I was
> driving within the speed limit and I was just basicly cruising, not really
> trying to pass everybody. The car got around 40mpg just in a test drive.

The only hybrid I am familiar with from the seat of the pants is the one
I helped build. It was a heavy slug.

>> And since this
>> is a money saving class, the standard gasoline powered civic is cheaper
>> to operate than the honda hybrids.

> Cheaper to buy? Definitely. Cheaper to own? No. I don't see how they
> would be cheaper to operate, being as the cost of gassing it up will be
> about 20-25 percent more for the regular Civic.

This analysis was done by one of the car rags. The initial price buys a
considerable amount of gasoline and the standard civic has fuel economy
that isn't much worse than that of the hybrid.

>> Renewable oil (processes which turn waste products like pig crap and
>> turkey guts into crude oil) will probably be a reality before
>> the required breakthroughs in battery technology that hybrids require.

> Hybrid cars don't require any breakthroughs in battery technology.

Yes, they do. It's taken decades to make them this functional. Without a
breakthrough in battery technology it is my guess they are as now as good
as they are going to get. The straight ICE to electric type without
batteries is more suited to large vehicles, not small ones.

In article >, Magnulus wrote:

> You make it sound like driving is a war or contest.

It often is. There are considerable numbers of 'judys', 'carls',
'wisers', etc out there on the road. I have seen LLBs accelerate to 100+
mph just to stop someone from passing them.

Also power allows one to take advantage of traffic gaps that are
otherwise unavailable. In congested areas this makes a huge difference.

>> The cost-benefit analysis has been performed many times. It will take
>> YEARS to recover the extra cost of buying the hybrid vehicle through
>> fuel cost savings - by which time the original batteries will have
>> worn out and will need to be replaced

> The batteries last about 180,000 miles. Toyota's conservative estimate
> is that it takes about 4 years to recoup the cost of buying a Prius vs. a
> Camry

Not apples to apples. The honda comparison is apples to apples.

> There are other cost-benefits to consider. Like, what do you consider the
> value of clean air, or reduced carbon emissions?

If you are concerned about mother earth, keep your current car as long
as possible. Building a new car puts more carbon into the air, does more
environmental damage than keeping your old one. One can drive an existing
car for a long time before it breaks even on this basis if replaced by a
new one, even a hybrid.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> First, I don't recall a hybrid that fast. They seem to be about as fast
> as my torqueless wonder car on accerlation. The TW is a worn out mid 80s
> 4 cylinder sedan. I would estimate it's zero to 60 at around 14 seconds.

The Prius accelerates 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds. The Honda Civic Hybrid
does 0-60 in 11.6 The Insight did 0-60 in 11 seconds. The Honda Accord
Hybrid does 0-60 in 7 1/2 seconds, I believe (and it is a gas guzzler,
relatively for a hybrid- it has worse fuel efficiency than the Ford Escape
Hybrid, and it also has a tiny electric motor relative to the gas engine).

A Toyota Corolla gets a 0-60 around 10.5 seconds, in comparison.

>
> Because of sloths on the road, horsepower, well torque actually is
> required. When someone who thinks merging into 70mph traffic at 35mph is
> a good idea and uses up most of the ramp space, it's nice to still be
> able to accelerate up to a safe merging speed.

I hardly ever drive on freeways, so it's not as big an issue for me.
The hybrids apparrently do fine on freeways, though the Honda Insight
doesn't have the best road handling on a freeway at 75-80mph and can be
buffeted by wind.

> This analysis was done by one of the car rags. The initial price buys a
> considerable amount of gasoline and the standard civic has fuel economy
> that isn't much worse than that of the hybrid.

True. But Honda says next model year (2006), the Civic Hybrid will have
significantly higher miles per gallon. And the current 22-25 percent
improvement vs. a regular Civic is nothing to sneeze at- there isn't a huge
gap between city and highway driving, unlike a regular car. When you stop
the car, the engine turns off and there's nothing but the noise of other
cars- I can see how this would save alot of gas in certain situations.

> Yes, they do. It's taken decades to make them this functional. Without a
> breakthrough in battery technology it is my guess they are as now as good
> as they are going to get. The straight ICE to electric type without
> batteries is more suited to large vehicles, not small ones.

And nickle metal hydride is pretty darn good, too. In the next few years,
the cost of the batteries will gradually decline.

Hybrid cars are not new, they actually have had them for almost a century
in one form or another (Ferdinand Porsche being the inventor of the first
hybrid gas-electric car), but in the past the battery was a limitation. But
now there are batteries that are good enough to meet the needs, so I don't
see how this is an issue anymore.

In article >, Magnulus wrote:

>> Because of sloths on the road, horsepower, well torque actually is
>> required. When someone who thinks merging into 70mph traffic at 35mph is
>> a good idea and uses up most of the ramp space, it's nice to still be
>> able to accelerate up to a safe merging speed.

> I hardly ever drive on freeways, so it's not as big an issue for me.

So another person who is to decide what we should all drive based on
what's good for him. I drive on interstates. I need good zero-80 times.
I have to come down short urban ramps and I have to be doing at least
70mph at the end of them. The torqueless wonder could barely pull this
off. I don't drive my '73 much anymore and I don't take it where ramps
are short and such if I can help it.

And pushing those cars at 11 second zero to 60 times is going to have a
negative effect on charge levels and the like. I wouldn't want to drive
daily in their current state. Maybe, if I had some equivlent to a manual
trans so I could take control they might be ok.

> The hybrids apparrently do fine on freeways, though the Honda Insight
> doesn't have the best road handling on a freeway at 75-80mph and can be
> buffeted by wind.

I made no comment in this regard. The comment was why acceleration was
needed. They are still small cars of a low powered class. I am sure they
do fine once at speed.

>> This analysis was done by one of the car rags. The initial price buys a
>> considerable amount of gasoline and the standard civic has fuel economy
>> that isn't much worse than that of the hybrid.

> True. But Honda says next model year (2006), the Civic Hybrid will have
> significantly higher miles per gallon. And the current 22-25 percent
> improvement vs. a regular Civic is nothing to sneeze at- there isn't a huge
> gap between city and highway driving, unlike a regular car. When you stop
> the car, the engine turns off and there's nothing but the noise of other
> cars- I can see how this would save alot of gas in certain situations.

The fact remains, cost wise, the hybrid is currently more expensive to
buy and operate overall.

>> Yes, they do. It's taken decades to make them this functional. Without a
>> breakthrough in battery technology it is my guess they are as now as good
>> as they are going to get. The straight ICE to electric type without
>> batteries is more suited to large vehicles, not small ones.

> And nickle metal hydride is pretty darn good, too. In the next few years,
> the cost of the batteries will gradually decline.

Pretty good for YOU. Not for ME. A battery replacement is like replacing
an engine. I don't want to replace the engine. And BTW, battery
expectency is in years rather than miles. Time will kill those batteries
before miles.

> Hybrid cars are not new, they actually have had them for almost a century
> in one form or another (Ferdinand Porsche being the inventor of the first
> hybrid gas-electric car), but in the past the battery was a limitation. But
> now there are batteries that are good enough to meet the needs, so I don't
> see how this is an issue anymore.

I can give you better automotive history lesson than you can give me if
you really want to go that way.

The batteries are good enough to meet YOUR needs. Not mine. You like
hybrids as they are today, you buy one. I won't be. They aren't good
enough yet for me.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:50:11 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Because there isn't the market demand for these particular types of cars
>> and hyrid car technology is only good enough to produce cars with a level
>> of performance that is barely acceptable for this class.
>
> Just how good do people need- how much horsepower? What's wrong with 0-60
>in ten seconds, exactly?

What's wrong with it is that a car that does 0 - 60 in 6 seconds sells better.

Nobody "needs" any given acceleration number, but they sure _want_ it. And,
since its a free country, they should be able to get what they want, in spite
of safety nazis and environmental extremists.

> I have driven a Honda Civic Hybrid and the car handles quite well (the
>Prius is harder to find, so I have not driven one yet). Of course, I was
>driving within the speed limit and I was just basicly cruising, not really
>trying to pass everybody. The car got around 40mpg just in a test drive.

Take I-68 thru W. Maryland and W. Va, see what happens. Can you say "hills"?

>> And since this
>> is a money saving class, the standard gasoline powered civic is cheaper
>> to operate than the honda hybrids.
>
> Cheaper to buy? Definitely. Cheaper to own? No. I don't see how they
>would be cheaper to operate, being as the cost of gassing it up will be
>about 20-25 percent more for the regular Civic. The CVT will also probably
>incur no more wear than a regular automatic transmission (CVT is after all a
>fairly old technology). And the batteries are ordinary nickle metal hydride
>batteries, just like what would go into any number of electric appliances
>and gadgets people use.

25% more than a very small number anyway is not a big savings. The battery
replacement, whenever it happens, will eat this up and then some, unless of
course one trades it away before the batteries die. Of course, prospective
owners of the used car will figure in battery replacement when they buy it, so
I wouldn't expect a big trade-in value for a hybrid with 100,000 miles on it.

>> Renewable oil (processes which turn waste products like pig crap and
>> turkey guts into crude oil) will probably be a reality before
>> the required breakthroughs in battery technology that hybrids require.
>
> Hybrid cars don't require any breakthroughs in battery technology.

They require an efficiency breakthru. The electric hybrid only recovers about
25% of the braking energy available.

Dave Head