Project for the Next Generation of Vehicles

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:38:44 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"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?

He's not kidding, and I agree with him.

>> 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.

For all practical purposes, it is. People will try to put you at a
disadvantage whenever they can. You're best defense is superior performance of
your vehicle.

>> 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.

This would make the car have a life of 180,000 miles, then, as it wouldn't be
economical to spend that kind of money on a car with that high mileage. That
would make the car about a 5 year car for me. My Jeep Cherokee is running just
fine at 165,000 right now, and I expect I'll probably have it beyond 250,000
miles, partially because there's no new car I can buy to replace it - the new
Jeep Liberty has no cargo carrying capacity - and I have some stuff I like to
have with me most of the time. Next car is likely a Subaru WRX Wagon, which is
not an SUV, and won't replace the Jeep in performance, but its the closest
thing I can put up with. Someday. After my Jeep passes 250,000 miles...

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

Zero. The air is clean enough. And the carbon emissions "problem" is an
invention of the environmental extremists that want to use the issue to gain
political power. The earth has been _warmer_ than it is _now_, and we're all
still here...

The best feature of a fuel efficient car would be in the positive action for
the balance of trade problem. But, other technologies being developed right
now, specifically the hydraulic hybrid drive with an 82% efficiency at
capturing braking energy, will better serve us than the electric hybrid.

>>. 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.

It would be a scrap. You can't replace just 1 battery. If you did, you'd just
drive down the road a few thousand miles and have another old battery failure.
Constant failure and replace cycle, until you got them all replaced eventually.
Very annoying to keep having failures, and very expensive to sink that sort of
money in a 180,000 mile car.

Dave Head

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Which causes more pollution: a gasoline engine, or a coal-fired power
> plant that charges the batteries in your Prius?

A gasoline or other ICE charges the batteries in the hybrid.

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.

You're either a shill, or you've swallowed the environmentalist
claptrap hook, line, and sinker.

>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.

It's easy to build a car that gets really good gas mileage -- as long
as you ignore the OTHER constraints affecting cars.

>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.

Because it doesn't work as well as what is used. Hydrogen? Where are
you going to store it? How is it going to be produced? Hybrids cost
more to build (lots more), get anemic performance, and there's some
question in my mind about whether the gain in mileage is actually due
to the hybrid technology as opposed to all the OTHER fuel-saving
technology put in the car. Batteries -- particularly large ones --
have remained stubbornly resistant to major improvements for years.

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:50:11 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>> 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"?

I used to get 40mpg in actual use in a Toyota Tercel. Gasoline
powered. 40mpg in a hybrid that isn't much bigger isn't what I call
progress.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:12:30 +1100, "Steve Magee" >
> wrote:
>
> >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!
>
> 2005, meet 1905.

Ya know, I always thought that judy was some kind of throw back to a
more primative time........ ;-)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:41:16 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:20:22 -0700, Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:27:54 -0500, "Magnulus" >
>>
>>>(the Honda Insight doesn't count, it's a joke-
>>>and about to be discontinued)
>>
>>Okay, why is it a joke?
>>
>>Sure, it's small, but so are a lot of other cars on the market.
>
>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.

SUVs may be outselling small cars, but small cars do indeed still
sell.

>
>A small anything for the roadway is not the solution to this.

It is if a particular consumer wants a small car.

>We need to be
>able to haul stuff now that people have all moved out into the country.

We have not all moved out into the country.

>Kids
>can't get on their bikes and get to anyplace in town that they need to,

I couldn't go *anyplace* in town that I needed to, but I sure as hell
got to an awful lot of places on my bike as a kid. Those streets (and
hike-n-bike paths) are still traversable via bike.

>they
>have to be driven. You end up hauling the whole damn little league team,
>repeatedly and often.

You may end up hauling the whole damn little league team, but everyone
doesn't. I sure as hell don't.

>You need to haul stuff back from Home Depot today,

I doubt you "need" to, but if you want to, there are other methods.
When I bought my last TV, I wasn't about to wait 3 days for the store
to deliver it for me so I called up someone with a truck.

I'll be damned if I'm gonna drive around in a big honking SUV just
because on very rare occasions my car isn't big enough.

>instead of waiting for it to be delivered Tuesday. And people believe that
>they can avoid a rollover accident via their superior driving, and will simply
>crush the other car in any sort of collision if they have a big SUV.

And hopefully, I'll be able to maneuver around them as they crash and
burn.

>
>Soo... make the SUV's fuel efficient, that's the answer.
>
>Dave Head

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:22:50 -0500, "Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her
> boyfriend is a > wrote:
>
> >Ya know, I always thought that judy was some kind of throw back to a
> >more primative time........ ;-)
>
> When people lived in villages, and every village had a idiot?

Something like that, even though relatively few people live in
"villages," today, there still plenty of idiots to go around... ;-)

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
>
> And then cost $6,000 to replace.

I've seen no proof that the batteries cost that much, only FUD. The Prius
costs only 2,000 or so more than a Camry, and it is sold with some profit
for Toyota.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> I used to get 40mpg in actual use in a Toyota Tercel. Gasoline
> powered. 40mpg in a hybrid that isn't much bigger isn't what I call
> progress.

I looked up Toyota Tercel and depending on the year it got upper 20's to
lower 30's for gas mileage. Were you driving on a highway?

I got 40 miles per gallon with the Honda Civic Hybrid with city driving.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> Because it doesn't work as well as what is used. Hydrogen? Where are
> you going to store it? How is it going to be produced? Hybrids cost
> more to build (lots more), get anemic performance, and there's some
> question in my mind about whether the gain in mileage is actually due
> to the hybrid technology as opposed to all the OTHER fuel-saving
> technology put in the car.

And what would that be? Low rolling resistance tires? The Honda Civic
Hybrid gets about 22 percent better mileage than the regular Civic. The
only major difference between the two, besides the electric motor and
batteries, is that the Hybrid has low rolling resistance tires, but that
only accounts for a small percentage of the difference in the fuel
efficiency.