 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Electronics / May 2008Who Killed the Electric Car?
I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ Fantastic! Everyone should watch this one. The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you greatly" In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry. Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day. Dave. Yeh i saw this on foxtel only about 1 month ago. I was amazed at GM's blind approach to taking back the EV1 and crushing it despite having customers willing to pay for them with no wish for support ! utterly amazing. >I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?: > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave. >I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?: >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Dave. In spite of leftist weenie conspiracy theories the real facts are that the economics weren't there... and leaving the cars on-the-road has some legal and cost aspects you haven't considered. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: "skypeanalog" | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave > ... and leaving the cars on-the-road has > some legal and cost aspects you haven't considered. For GM? Enlighten us. >> ... and leaving the cars on-the-road has >> some legal and cost aspects you haven't considered. > >For GM? Enlighten us. (1) Any product you have in the public's hands exposes you to liability suits. (2) In the automotive industry you have to provide parts for 7 years after introduction. My guess is that the battery technology wasn't ready for prime time and they had some accidental "events" they didn't publish. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: "skypeanalog" | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave >>> ... and leaving the cars on-the-road has >>> some legal and cost aspects you haven't considered. >> For GM? Enlighten us. > > (1) Any product you have in the public's hands exposes you to > liability suits. Good old capitalist's rule: He who takes no risks will not win. I have taken quite some risks in my career and I am sure you did. I expect the same from our corporate leadership, else there won't be progress. > (2) In the automotive industry you have to provide parts for 7 years > after introduction. A good company ups that to 15 or 20 years, at least. Else the reputation is toast and in automotive a loos of reputation is nearly a permanent thing. > My guess is that the battery technology wasn't ready for prime time > and they had some accidental "events" they didn't publish. Maybe they should send their engineers to a Japanese university then? Sorry for being so sarcastic but sometimes the excuses the big three come up with are almost sickening. And they should stop calling 32mpg for a mid-size passenger car an achievement when my wife's 1995 Toyota regularly nets >35mpg.  SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. > I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?: > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day. No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, practicality and high cost. Graham >No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, >practicality and high cost. >Graham In 1999, GM planned to produce only 465 EV1 cars. There was a 1000+ unofficial waiting list in case someone changed their mind or GM decided to increase production. When GM refused to extend the leases, many EV-1 owners send GM lease payment checks anyway (which GM did not deposit). When GM discontinued the EV-1 in 2003, the unofficial waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a problem. The first major problem was liability issues due to a fire started while charging in the Gen 1 models. Some interesting reading from Phil Karn: <http://www.ka9q.net/ev/> <http://www.ka9q.net/ev/ev1fire.html> Leaky electrolyte from a failed capacitor in the charging port. GM setup the EV-1 to fail. They were very surprised when it became quite popular and very much in demand, despite the high price, lousy GM support, and leasing requirements. <http://www.cleanup-gm.com/> SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 >> No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, >> practicality and high cost. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > GM support, and leasing requirements. > <http://www.cleanup-gm.com/> I wonder when car manufacturers (including European ones) will finally wake up. Sometimes I wonder whether they'll wake up at all. A brief look at Japan might help ... SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. > >> No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, > >> practicality and high cost. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > wake up. Sometimes I wonder whether they'll wake up at all. A brief look > at Japan might help ... Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win the day. Graham >>>> No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, >>>> practicality and high cost. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win > the day. Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from? SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. >> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win >> the day. > Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from? Exactly. My 2c is on a proper hybrid where the ICE(petrol or diesel) simply runs a generator that tops up the battery bank. I would really like to see if that works out more efficent that all the inefficencies of current direct drive ICEs. >>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win >>> the day. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I would really like to see if that works out more efficent that all the > inefficencies of current direct drive ICEs. That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg according to what owners told me. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. > >>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win > >>> the day. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg > according to what owners told me. I was pretty sure the Prius was a parallel Hybrid (the electric motor was in parallel to the ICE drive train). As opposed to a serial hybrid where the final portion of the drive train is all-electric. Some of the proposed hybrids appear to be of the latter. The parallel hybrid does mean that neither motor needs to be sized large enough for the full load. Robert ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > In article <fnFXj.506$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg says... <...> > > That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg > > according to what owners told me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The parallel hybrid does mean that neither motor needs to be sized large > enough for the full load. <...> True, although the Prius is more of a Hybrid-Hybrid: At low speeds it is a series hybrid with the majority of the engine power going to a generator and then to the motor driving the wheels with only a small amount directly from engine to wheels. At high speeds the situation is reversed and it acts more like a parallel hybrid with a large fraction, up to 100% of engine power, going straight to the wheels. This is done to maximize efficiency since the mechanical transmission has an efficiency of 95% or more but the electrical losses through two motor/generators are about 20%. As you say the parallel approach also avoids the need to size the electrical equipment large enough for the full load - the generator is only 30KW even though the engine can output close to 60kW. The motor driving the wheels is 50kW as an additional 20KW can come from the battery. kevin >> In article <fnFXj.506$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg says... ><...> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >has an efficiency of 95% or more but the electrical losses through two >motor/generators are about 20%. That is way past remarkably crappy motor and generator efficiencies. Both are typically each 95 to 98 percent efficient. Hell the antique "Molly Long Legs" topped 99%. >As you say the parallel approach also avoids the need to size the >electrical equipment large enough for the full load - the generator is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >kevin > On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:58:49 -0700 (PDT), kevin93 <..> > >This is done to maximize efficiency since the mechanical transmission > >has an efficiency of 95% or more but the electrical losses through two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Both are typically each 95 to 98 percent efficient. Hell the antique > "Molly Long Legs" topped 99%. <...> I don't know about those you mention but the published peak efficiency of the ones in the Prius (including the inverter) are about 93%, put two in series and the losses to convert from mechanical energy back to mechanical energy when operating at peak efficiency would be about 15% - for other operating conditions they can be a lot worse, hence my 20% number. AC Propulsion (www.acpropulsion.com) only claim 91% from battery to shaft for their system with 86% with a "road load" (implying an average under normal usage). That is even lower than the Toyota figure. When considering regenerative efficiency the numbers get even worse - the battery may only have a 70% efficiency giving only a 50% overall energy recovery efficiency. Undoubtedly the efficiency could be improved but would add weight and cost - Toyota and Honda are the only manufacturers with real-world experience of producing this class of machines in million unit quantities so presumably these designs represent their view of the optimum compromise for this application kevin Do they use permanent magnet, electric field or AC (induction) motors? An electric field DC motor might be the easiest, but the field burns up a couple horsepower sitting there. That would cut into efficiency a bit. [Asynchronous] AC motors are a bit harder to generate power from. The nice thing about a DC motor is you can drive the armature with a big f.cking H bridge, open circuit coasts, forward = accelerate, reverse = regenerate / reverse. It's a built in buck-boost. Tim -- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms > > On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:58:49 -0700 (PDT), kevin93 > <..> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > kevin [....] > An electric field DC motor might be the easiest, but the field burns up a > couple horsepower sitting there. That would cut into efficiency a bit. > [Asynchronous] AC motors are a bit harder to generate power from. AC motors are not all that hard to generate power with, if you already have AC power systems to run them. If the slip frequency goes negative, the terminal impedance of an AC motor has a negative real component. > Do they use permanent magnet, electric field or AC (induction) motors? <...> They are permanent magnet AC synchronous 3-phase motors - so they don't need excitation. They use a DC rail of up to 500V (650V in other Toyota models) feeding three half bridges to drive the motor pretty much as you describe. They are not set into reverse to regenerate though, the PWM duty-cycle is controlled to give boost so that current flows into the battery rather than out. They can regenerate with a road-speed as low as 7mph, while allowing over 100mph before they run out of control because the BEMF exceeds the rail voltage. kevin > > Do they use permanent magnet, electric field or AC (induction) motors? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ > They are permanent magnet AC synchronous 3-phase motors - so they > don't need excitation. Ok, then that's included in my list (maybe not explicitly). Permanent magnet you just strap on a rectifier and boost converter, but you have the weight of the magnets to contend with, which I've got to imagine is quite substantial in the many-HP range. Or are these magnetized cage rotors, so, er, semi-synchronous I suppose might be a way to put it. (Full magnetized rotor is synchronous, nonmagnetized "squirrel cage" rotor (which I was thinking of with "AC (induction) motor") is the regular deal.) > They are not set into reverse to regenerate though, the PWM duty-cycle > is controlled to give boost so that current flows into the battery > rather than out. Alright, which is like what I went on to say, but AC? God, that must be awful, you need to run a VFD in reverse. So to suck power from it, you need to synchronize the rate with the shaft? Minus the difference which is power drawn of course. I suppose it's no BFD if you have a bidirectional (power in/out) self contained VFD controller inside a feedback loop that's controlled by the gas/brake pedals to make it feed power out of or into the battery, but that's an awful lot of trouble. I'd just as soon go for a frickin DC motor, but maybe it's not as efficient. Tim -- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms >>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg > according to what owners told me. Which isn't all that impressive by European or Japanese standards of fuel efficiency. A BMW 3 series deisel saloon will manage that. eg http://saveyourcash.co.uk/fuel/cardatadetail.aspx?mfr=BMW&model=3-Series-E90/E91 /E92/E93&id=632 Urban 39.8 Motorway 64.2 mpg to save you following the link. (and it will turn in that sort of excellent fuel efficiency at speeds well above the UK national speed limit of 70mph) Factor in the energy costs of making and disposal of the Prius batteries and the deisel BMW almost certainly wins on lifetime costs. BTW: How long do Prius batteries last? Regards, Martin Brown ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Factor in the energy costs of making and disposal of the Prius batteries > and the deisel BMW almost certainly wins on lifetime costs. Sure, but so far most European Diesels weren't able to pass emissions in California. And wasn't there that company in Germany that made soot filters that turned out not to work and they knew it? Read something like that in the papers. > BTW: How long do Prius batteries last? No idea. AFAIK they keep them between 50% and 80% charge to make them last. So far none of the neighbors here has needed replacement and most of them use the Prius for lengthy daily commutes, including a grade you have to tackle to get up here. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. >> BTW: How long do Prius batteries last? >No idea. AFAIK they keep them between 50% and 80% charge to make them >last. So far none of the neighbors here has needed replacement and most >of them use the Prius for lengthy daily commutes, including a grade you >have to tackle to get up here. Yep. Overcharging (or running a battery close to 100% charge) or running the battery into total discharge, kills NiMH batteries). Toyota says at least 180,000 miles in tests, with some going to 250,000 miles. 180,000 is about 10-12 years. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius> SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 > >>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most > >>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Urban 39.8 Motorway 64.2 mpg to save you following the link. Multiply by 0.8 to get US mpg. Graham >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Graham US fluid ounces are a bit bigger than Imperial, so the ratio isn't 1.25:1 as you might expect, but almost exactly 1.20:1. Cheers, Phil Hobbs > >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most > >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > US fluid ounces are a bit bigger than Imperial, so the ratio isn't > 1.25:1 as you might expect, but almost exactly 1.20:1. So a US fl oz doesn't weigh an ounce ? Graham >>>>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >>>>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Graham No, a US gallon of water is 3.785 litres, which at 2.2046 pounds per kg, comes out to 8.345 pounds. An Imperial gallon of water is exactly 10 pounds, so the ratio is 10:8.345 or 1.198:1, just about 6:5. Cheers, Phil Hobbs >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >So a US fl oz doesn't weigh an ounce ? --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce JF > >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most > >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > --- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? Graham >> >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >> >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? --- You never miss an opportunity to be a nasty little bitch, do you? JF > >> >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most > >> >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > --- > You never miss an opportunity to be a nasty little bitch, do you? Are you suggesting that fl oz make any kind of sense ? Especially when there THREE different definitions. Graham >> >> >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >> >> >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Are you suggesting that fl oz make any kind of sense ? --- Most of the world seems to think so: news:3fld34969bstq3nsjriarf75342rdrj9sf@4ax.com Especially when there THREE different definitions. --- So what? JF > >> >> >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most > >> >> >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > news:3fld34969bstq3nsjriarf75342rdrj9sf@4ax.com They only put fl oz on those for the export market. You won't see it in the non-US market. You see ml ONLY in most of the world. > Especially when there THREE different definitions. > > --- > So what? Because it doesn't have a standardised value. A fl oz could be 28.41 ml 29.57 ml or 30 ml Bloody stupid if you ask me. Graham >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most >> >> >> >> >>>>>> likely win [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >They only put fl oz on those for the export market. You won't see it in the non-US market. You see ml ONLY in >most of the world. --- Then those are US fluid ounces, which is what we're used to, so there's certainly no confusion there. --- >> Especially when there THREE different definitions. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Bloody stupid if you ask me. --- But if what we get are US fluid ounces, then there's no conflict and the only thing that remains bloody stupid is you. JF John Fields wrote:--- > But if what we get are US fluid ounces, then there's no conflict and > the only thing that remains bloody stupid is you. You'd be confused by a BRITISH bottle of L&P then ! As for your love of fl oz, well if you like living in some backwater, who am I to care. I believe Myanmar (a.k.sa. Burma) still uses 'tradional measures' too but most likely the British versions. Other than that you're on your own. Graham >John Fields wrote:--- > >> But if what we get are US fluid ounces, then there's no conflict and >> the only thing that remains bloody stupid is you. > >You'd be confused by a BRITISH bottle of L&P then ! --- Hardly, since I can deal with milliliters as well as fluid ounces, while it seems _you_ have an aversion to the latter. --- >As for your love of fl oz, well if you like living in some backwater, who am I to care. --- Precisely, and why should you care if, as some Russian doctors we hosted in our home for a few weeks a while back said: "You live in paradise.", since it's no business of yours either way. --- >I believe Myanmar (a.k.sa. Burma) still uses 'tradional measures' >too but most likely the British versions. Other than that you're on your >own. --- So you subscribe to the: "Your end of the boat is sinking." Foolosophy? JF > Bloody stupid if you ask me. Yes, you are. Thank you for finally admitting it. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > > Bloody stupid if you ask me. > > Yes, you are. Thank you for finally admitting it. TWIT >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce >> Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? > > --- > You never miss an opportunity to be a nasty little bitch, do you? Haha! This Wikipedia article is one of the best arguments in favour of the metric system I've come across. What a mess! Jeroen Belleman > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce > >> Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Haha! This Wikipedia article is one of the best arguments in > favour of the metric system I've come across. What a mess! At least the British fl oz actually weighs an ounce ! But no-one here uses them any more. Not for ages in fact. We have kept the pint though for certain uses (different to a US pint of course) for traditional reasons. Asking for 568ml of beer doesn't quite have the same ring to it. ;~) Gaham >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce >> >> Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >At least the British fl oz actually weighs an ounce ! But no-one here >uses them any more. Not for ages in fact. --- Really? One size of Lea & Perrins Worcestershire sauce is clearly labeled as containing 15 fluid ounces. --- >We have kept the pint though for certain uses (different to a US pint of >course) for traditional reasons. Asking for 568ml of beer doesn't quite >have the same ring to it. --- So it's OK for you to keep a pint a pint because it's traditional for you, but even though it's traditional for us, as well, it's not OK for us? f.ck you, you condescending, two-faced piece of sh.t. Or, in your case, I guess that would be 'shite' JF > >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce > >> >> Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Really? One size of Lea & Perrins Worcestershire sauce is clearly > labeled as containing 15 fluid ounces. Not UK fl oz of course. I did just check my own bottle of L&P and to my surprise it's labelled " 150ml (5.3 fl oz) " but those are UK fl oz. There is no actual prohibition of dual marking but almost no-one does it and it wouldn't be US fl oz since they aren't legal here. Your bottle would be 15.6 fl oz here. Proof it any were needed that what you have there is an example of export labelling for the US market. It bears no resemblance in any other way either to the UK bottle which is distinguishable by its orange label e.g. http://www.leaperrins.ca/homeEN.asp I also checked a few other items and no others had fl oz on them. They're all in ml. Graham >> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce >> >> >> Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >150ml (5.3 fl oz) " but those are UK fl oz. There is no actual prohibition of >dual marking but almost no-one does it --- So it's gone from: "But no-one here uses them any more. Not for ages in fact." to: "but almost no-one does it" ? --- >and it wouldn't be US fl oz since they >aren't legal here. Your bottle would be 15.6 fl oz here. Proof it any were >needed that what you have there is an example of export labelling for the US >market. --- Sorry, Charlie, The label you saw came from a bottle that clearly states: "Made by Lea & Perrins, Inc., Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410 so it's not exported at all, except out of New Jersey. --- It bears no resemblance in any other way either to the UK bottle >which is distinguishable by its orange label e.g. >http://www.leaperrins.ca/homeEN.asp > >I also checked a few other items and no others had fl oz on them. They're all >in ml. --- So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? We like it, it's our country, and for the rest of you we also list the quantity in metric units, so quit your whining and get on with your meaningless life. JF > Sorry, Charlie, The label you saw came from a bottle that clearly > states: "Made by Lea & Perrins, Inc., Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410 so it's > not exported at all, except out of New Jersey. Not the genuine thing then obviously ! Certainly never ever went anywhere near Worcestershire. ;~) Graham >> Sorry, Charlie, The label you saw came from a bottle that clearly >> states: "Made by Lea & Perrins, Inc., Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410 so it's >> not exported at all, except out of New Jersey. > >Not the genuine thing then obviously ! Certainly never ever went anywhere near >Worcestershire. ;~) --- No, but I've certainly lived in enough places out of the US to remember having seen the orange label. BTW, did you know that Lea and Perrins is owned by Heinz? http://www.heinz.com/World.aspx#23 JF > So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the > quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? I didn't. It was YOU who got your knickers in a twist when I commented that US liquid measure is all at sea. Graham >> So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the >> quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? > >I didn't. --- Sure you did. You stated, in your always America-bashing way, that there was no way to standardize the measure, when what appears on our bottles is standard US fluid ounces and standard everywhere milliliters. (Which, BTW, yields a handy conversion, if it's necessary) That works for us, which really rankles you since you want to think that we're all slack-jawed knuckle-draggers and the UK is the elite be-all and end-all of everything, even though your Lea and Perrins bottle sports both fluid ounces and milliliters, just like ours, and is owned by an American company, Heinz. --- >It was YOU who got your knickers in a twist when I commented that US liquid >measure is all at sea. --- Disagreeing with you is hardly getting my knickers in a twist, and if it's a sea of our own, as you imply, why should that concern you? The fact is, you ingrate, that you and your ilk are so into England becoming the Washington, D.C. of the United States of Europe and don't want to have to admit that the US is the model which you're emulating that you'll go to great lengths to try to discredit us, even though we had the idea first. After India, of course. But what did that democracy mean to you as a system of government? Nothing. All you were interested in was lining your coffers with ill-gotten goods. The same goes for the middle east, where you chopped up territories according to the whims of politicians and other idiots who thought they knew what might be good borders and created enemies where none had existed before. Truth be told, IMO, you people are the reason for the unrest in the middle east and why the tensions in the world are now where they are. JF > >> So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the > >> quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You stated, in your always America-bashing way, that there was no way > to standardize the measure, I said there are 3 standards. > when what appears on our bottles is > standard US fluid ounces and standard everywhere milliliters. (Which, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > end-all of everything, even though your Lea and Perrins bottle sports > both fluid ounces and milliliters, just like ours, No, it's marked in ml and BRITISH fl oz over here. Yours is marked in US fl oz and ml. > and is owned by an > American company, Heinz. So what ? > >It was YOU who got your knickers in a twist when I commented that US liquid > >measure is all at sea. > > --- > Disagreeing with you is hardly getting my knickers in a twist, and if > it's a sea of our own, as you imply, why should that concern you? I'm not interested in playing your silly game any more. Graham >> >> So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the >> >> quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >No, it's marked in ml and BRITISH fl oz over here. Yours is marked in US fl oz >and ml. --- Surely, you must be joking! I can't imagine why our bottles would be marked as containing US fluid ounces. How clever of the bottlers! --- >> Disagreeing with you is hardly getting my knickers in a twist, and if >> it's a sea of our own, as you imply, why should that concern you? > >I'm not interested in playing your silly game any more. --- Then get off the playground and shut the f.ck up. JF > >> >> So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the > >> >> quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > --- > Surely, you must be joking! No. Those are facts. Are you seriously not capable of seeing / understanding that for yourself ? Graham >> >> >> So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the >> >> >> quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Those are facts. Are you seriously not capable of seeing / understanding that for >yourself ? --- I see you snipped the sarcasm... What's the matter, donkey-boy, didn't you get it? JF > Not UK fl oz of course. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I also checked a few other items and no others had fl oz on them. They're all > in ml. They don't want to confuse small minds like yours, that can't do more then the simplest math. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > > Not UK fl oz of course. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > They don't want to confuse small minds like yours, that can't do more > then the simplest math. Fluid ounces serve no practical purpose. FYI when I started studing physics we briefly used the Imperial system and it made no sense at all what with crazy measures like foot-poundals et al. Luckily we rapidly changed to cgs and then MKS (the precursor of SI) and all of a sudden all was clear. I went on to get top grades in my Physics 'O' level (age 16) and 'A' level (age 18) exams and furthermore got a pass (a second only sadly - the electronic content that year was low) in the Physics 'S level' (special paper) normally only typically taken by Oxford and Cambridge entrants (our 'Ivy Leauge' if you like). The school wanted me to apply to Cambridge actually but they didn't offer any specialist electronic courses, they were still stuck with 'natural sciences', so I went to the University of London (UCL). Doing Physics in Imperial measures is NUTS. Never mind that American measures use the same names but are different ! What a bloody mess ! Graham >> > Not UK fl oz of course. >> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Doing Physics in Imperial measures is NUTS. Never mind that American measures use >the same names but are different ! What a bloody mess ! --- And yet... Take a look at this: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/nobel/ Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with non-Metric units has resulted in what appears to be our overwhelming scientific superiority. JF > Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with non-Metric units has resulted > in what appears to be our overwhelming scientific superiority. Don't give a sh.t. >> Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with non-Metric units has resulted >> in what appears to be our overwhelming scientific superiority. > >Don't give a sh.t. --- Then what's the snippety-snip for and what's all your braying about? JF > Doing Physics in Imperial measures is NUTS. Never mind that American measures use > the same names but are different ! What a bloody mess ! > > Graham I dunno--I usually use Gaussian units, because of all those silly epsilon-noughts and mu-noughts you have to worry about in the SI system. God clearly meant us to use Gaussian units, because to engineering accuracy 1 cm = 1 pF. (*) Anyway, you only need the units once the physics is done and you're descending to mere engineering. ;) Cheers, Phil Hobbs (*) God also wants us to use English units, as you can tell from the cosmically revealed fact that 1 attoparsec equals almost exactly 1 decifoot. > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce > > >> Lucky then that almost no-one these days uses them isn't it ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > At least the British fl oz actually weighs an ounce ! So, the volume changes, depending on what is in the container? > But no-one here > uses them any more. Not for ages in fact. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gaham SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > > Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win > > the day. > > Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from? I believe he is using H to refer to Hybrid. Robert ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > >>>> No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, > >>>> practicality and high cost. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from? Hybrid, not hydrogen. Actually PHEVs are the best. The P being for 'plug in' so it can be recharged from both the electricity mains and its internal (small) ICE. Graham > Hydrogen? Hydrogen is a scam. And highly explosive and difficult to store and 101 other bad things. > Where's that going to be coming from? It currently comes mainly from fossil fuels of course ! Graham > Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win > the day. Horses for courses. Given the right price, we'd buy a EV for local shopping and trips. At one stage, we won a Nikki and I was briefly considering someoneelses lead and converting it to an EV for shopping, but it was that or pay off the mortgage. > > Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win > > the day. > > Horses for courses. > Given the right price, we'd buy a EV for local shopping and trips. For many (indeed most) people, 2 cars aren't a practical option. > At one stage, we won a Nikki and I was briefly considering someoneelses > lead and converting it to an EV for shopping, but it was that or pay off > the mortgage. What's a 'Nikki' ? Graham > >No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest, > >practicality and high cost. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a > problem. The EV1 was a research project. The lease payments came nowhere close to the cost of mantaining the vehicles. I doubt GM would have taken on the additional losses. Had they charged tha actual costs of the vehicles, I doubt even the first 400 would have been leased. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Experience is the worst teacher. It always gives the test first and the instruction afterward. > When GM discontinued the EV-1 in 2003, the unofficial > waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a > problem. No car of this ilk can be a viable commercial venture on the basis of a couple of thousand sales ! Graham David L. Jones a écrit : > I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?: > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave. Hello, I wondered about its disappearance too! But I knew some thirty years ago about the existence of electric cars : I read Truman Capotes "other voices other rooms" or was it "The Grassharp?. At least I hope my memory is reliable (anyway it was T. C.) He tells about his aunts driving around with it and causing a near accident, or so they imagined... Peter > David L. Jones a écrit : >> I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > so they imagined... > Peter The concept of electric cars is a whole lot older than 30 years: http://www.thoroughbred-cars.com/electric.htm SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. >The concept of electric cars is a whole lot older than 30 years: >http://www.thoroughbred-cars.com/electric.htm I have a repair manual for an electric delivery vehicle made prior to WWI. It was used for delivering milk to homes (no refridgeration) in the pre-dawn hours. Since noise was then considered a serious problem, electric delivery vehicles were the only option. Note that there are several Li-Ion conversions for Prius hybrids effectively making them electric cars. <http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34422/113/> The new battery and plug-in charger extends the battery only range of the Prius from about 7 miles to about 20 miles. However, gas, electric, and such will soon be out of fashion. What we need is a nuclear powered automobile.: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon> SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 > However, gas, electric, and such will soon be out of fashion. What we > need is a nuclear powered automobile.: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon> p-B11 fusion had better work, and be scalable down to that level. Aneutronic fusion might indeed be about to happen, but the scalability seems to be in the other direction. Maybe a home reactor. Not likely either, at least in my lifetime. --Damon >> However, gas, electric, and such will soon be out of fashion. What we >> need is a nuclear powered automobile.: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Maybe a home reactor. Not likely either, at least in my lifetime. If Charles Cagle is right, there's a good chance: http://www.singtech.com/ I think Big Oil had a lot to do with influencing GM to abandon and sabotage their own EV program, just as they have tried to reverse any trend toward greater fuel economy by encouraging the glorification of horsepower, size, weight, speed, and competitive driving. There are a lot of options for efficient vehicles: http://electricandhybridcars.com/index.php/pages/electriccarnews.html Paul >> The concept of electric cars is a whole lot older than 30 years: >> http://www.thoroughbred-cars.com/electric.htm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the pre-dawn hours. Since noise was then considered a serious > problem, electric delivery vehicles were the only option. When I was young they didn't have noise qualms. Clippy-clop, clippy-clop ... a horse-drawn wagon brought the milk. > Note that there are several Li-Ion conversions for Prius hybrids > effectively making them electric cars. > <http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34422/113/> > The new battery and plug-in charger extends the battery only range of > the Prius from about 7 miles to about 20 miles. But those extra miles can cost you. This month's IEEE spectrum has a story of a guy who spent another $32k (!) on top of the Prius price tag to get his Li-Ion conversion. That's a bit steep. > However, gas, electric, and such will soon be out of fashion. What we > need is a nuclear powered automobile.: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon> :-) Right now Priuses are being bought in California as if it was the best thing since sliced bread. The big three are in for another round of hardship. Don't know if they can afford another round ... SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. >> Note that there are several Li-Ion conversions for Prius hybrids >> effectively making them electric cars. >> <http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34422/113/> >> The new battery and plug-in charger extends the battery only range of >> the Prius from about 7 miles to about 20 miles. >But those extra miles can cost you. This month's IEEE spectrum has a >story of a guy who spent another $32k (!) on top of the Prius price tag >to get his Li-Ion conversion. That's a bit steep. Quite a few people think it's worthwhile. One of the conversion sites: <http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html> lists the costs of converting a Prius to various plug-in power options at: - $6,000-10,000 for lead acid batteries - $8,000 for NiMH - $10,000 and up for Li-Ion One of the do it thyself sites: <http://www.eaa-phev.org> suggests about $6,000 plus 2 weeks labor. $32,000 seems a bit extreme. >> However, gas, electric, and such will soon be out of fashion. What we >> need is a nuclear powered automobile.: >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon> >:-) Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer). >Right now Priuses are being bought in California as if it was the best >thing since sliced bread. The big three are in for another round of >hardship. Don't know if they can afford another round ... I wouldn't be so quick to blame the manufacturers. Every time the economy, ecology, or government tries to push Americans into smaller cars, the domestic manufacturers find that only the big behemoth vehicles sell. The dealers discount the "unsellable" big cars in order to get rid of them. The buyers look at the price tags and notice they can buy a big car for sometime less than an economy car. Also, the buyers have a perception that they get more "value" per dollar in a bigger car. The net result is that the big cars continue to sell, while the poorly thrown-together economy cars, tend to sit on the lots. Let's play with the numbers. A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg. An economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg. If I drive 15,000 miles per year, at $4/gallon for regular, the gas costs are: $4,300 /year for the 14mpg gas hog SUV $2,100 /year for the 28mpg econo SUV That's $2,200/year difference. If the economy SUV costs MORE than the gas hog (due to dealer discounts and difference in demand), a customer might be willing to pay the extra $2,100/year just to drive the bigger SUV. I've been looking for a new vehicle and found that I can buy a 2003 gas hog SUV for about $5,000 and an economy mini-SUV for about $12,000. If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even. A bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money. So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling equally as well. Signature# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS >>> Note that there are several Li-Ion conversions for Prius hybrids >>> effectively making them electric cars. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - $8,000 for NiMH > - $10,000 and up for Li-Ion I wonder whether they all did a sober calculation including the rather finite number of charge cycles. I've seen lots of enviro-fans get carried away. > One of the do it thyself sites: > <http://www.eaa-phev.org> > suggests about $6,000 plus 2 weeks labor. > > $32,000 seems a bit extreme. Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that was with labor and not DYI: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6174 >>> However, gas, electric, and such will soon be out of fashion. What we >>> need is a nuclear powered automobile.: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer). That would be nice. We (have to) use propane for water heating. Used to be $35/mo. Now it's about $80/mo. I'd call that hyper-inflationary. >> Right now Priuses are being bought in California as if it was the best >> thing since sliced bread. The big three are in for another round of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > $12,000. If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even. A > bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money. Ok, my calcs are way different. I tend to keep cars for much longer than a decade. Heck, my trusty Mitsubishi econo SUV is 11 years old now and looks like new. I could imagine driving it another 10 years easily. Same for my wife's 1995 Toyota, looks like new, runs like new. If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use to drive back at the university. This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citroen2cvtff.jpg It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they really did later was up the horsepower once in a while. > So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz > the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling > equally as well. Not out here. There is a reason why Toyota does so well and we can see that reason in driveways every day when we take our dogs for a long walk. Remember when the guys at Buick and other places scoffed and laughed once they saw an ad for the VW Beetle? Pretty soon after they were heard syaing things like "Oh s..t!". Anyhow, at the end of the day the bottomline at the individual automaker speaks the truth. And that truth is painfully clear. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. >> Quite a few people think it's worthwhile. One of the conversion >> sites: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> - $8,000 for NiMH >> - $10,000 and up for Li-Ion >I wonder whether they all did a sober calculation including the rather >finite number of charge cycles. I've seen lots of enviro-fans get >carried away. Probably just ballpark guesses. Since such conversions are not in quantity production, estimating costs is tricky. >Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that >was with labor and not DYI: >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6174 Nice article. (I use a few Freewave data radios). Did you notice the update at the end of the article? <http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/05/hymotion_launches_more_afforda.html> <http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender> Hymotion plug in conversion for $10,000. Add a 2nd battery pack (as was done in original article), and it will be perhaps $15,000. The plug-in installation doesn't seem to be a major project and shouldn't add much to the cost. The site says it only takes "a few hours" to install. Anyway, it's much less than the original $32,000. I guess it costs $$$$ to be a pioneer. >> Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer). > >That would be nice. We (have to) use propane for water heating. Used to >be $35/mo. Now it's about $80/mo. I'd call that hyper-inflationary. A friends son and former juvenile delinquent is building a hot water boiling solar generator. Central boiler on a 50ft Rohn 25 tower (so the intensified sunlight doesn't cook the neighbors) with some tracking mirrors. So far, he hasn't produced much steam, but has produced enough hot water to warrant serious consideration. So, visualize your hot water heater sitting on top of a pole or tower with squeaky reflectors all over the roof. It's not nuclear, but it's sure better than $80/month. Otherwise, look into tankless flash water heaters. They have a rather high initial cost, but pay for themselves in about 2-3 years (depending on consumption) in reduced energy costs. >> Let's play with the numbers. A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg. An >> economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg. If I drive 15,000 miles per [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> $12,000. If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even. A >> bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money. >Ok, my calcs are way different. I tend to keep cars for much longer than >a decade. Heck, my trusty Mitsubishi econo SUV is 11 years old now and >looks like new. I could imagine driving it another 10 years easily. Same >for my wife's 1995 Toyota, looks like new, runs like new. Same here. My previous 1983 Dodge D50 diesel went for 285,000 miles and 23 years. I still have it an plan to rebuild it some day. However, my numbers and bad guesses are an effort to explain why the US manufactories continue to produce gas hogs. The discounted gas hogs continue to sell, while the overpriced economy cars just sit. It would be nice to be proven wrong and therefore restore my faith in the GUM (great unwashed masses). My current 15mpg gas hog 1993 Isuzu Trooper SUV was purchased for about $2,000 with 150,000 miles. Before that was a 14mpg 1970 Land Rover Series IIa which I drove for about 135,000 miles. That was preceeded by a 9mpg 1972 International 1210 3/4t 4x4 monster service truck, which I bought new and drove for 140,000 miles. The plan was to run the current Isuzu for "a few years" until I could afford something better. Well, I'm now looking. "New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"? <http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm> >If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use >to drive back at the university. This one: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citroen2cvtff.jpg You don't drive a 2CV. You wear it. The modern versions of shrink to fit automobiles is the Smart Car: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo> <http://www.smartusa.com> About 50mpg for gas. 80mpg for the diesel hybrid version. There's a rather large waiting list for one. I did a test drive in San Jose about 2 weeks ago, but decided it wasn't for me. It's like riding an enclosed motorcycle. >It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition >to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they >really did later was up the horsepower once in a while. That was before smog was an issue. For example, when it was new, my 1983 Dodge D50 diesel got 35 mpg. In the 1984 model, the same engine was smogged to reduce soot emissions. The gas mileage dropped to about 28 mpg. Kinda like dragging an anchor. If you need some entertainment value, try calculating the REDUCTION in CO2 emissions that would be produced by removing all the smog junk from infernal combustion engines. The official rate is 8.8kg (19.4 lbs) of CO2 produced for each gallon of gasoline. If we suddenly used perhaps 25% less gasoline, that would correspond to a reduction of about a 1/4th of the 5 metric tons of CO2 produced by each car annually. <http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm> >> So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz >> the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling >> equally as well. >Not out here. There is a reason why Toyota does so well and we can see >that reason in driveways every day when we take our dogs for a long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the bottomline at the individual automaker speaks the truth. And that >truth is painfully clear. In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot. In my recent search for a new vehicle, I ran a spreadsheet and graph of the resale value history for various prospective vehicles. American cars loose value much faster than imported cars. My guess is that if American manufacturers will ever learn to make a reliable automobile, that actually has some backing and support by the factory, then perhaps they have a chance. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're generally correct. SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 >>> Quite a few people think it's worthwhile. One of the conversion >>> sites: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Probably just ballpark guesses. Since such conversions are not in > quantity production, estimating costs is tricky. True. But Li-Ion charge cycles are pretty well researched out by now. I doubt one can ever get to 200k miles with one set. But one can on the first engine, and then some. >> Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that >> was with labor and not DYI: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > heaters. They have a rather high initial cost, but pay for themselves > in about 2-3 years (depending on consumption) in reduced energy costs. I am not a fan of those. My sister has instant heaters and often you either get pelted with an arctic shower or boiling water. Ok, that's an exaggeration but it ain't comfy. >>> Let's play with the numbers. A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg. An >>> economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg. If I drive 15,000 miles per [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > "New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"? > <http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm> The rationale in that article is a bit on the naive side IMHO. One has to factor in the pitfalls of used cars. What if the previous owner drove it sans oil to reach a gas station but never told you? What if he never slowed down at speed bumps? >> If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use >> to drive back at the university. This one: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about 2 weeks ago, but decided it wasn't for me. It's like riding an > enclosed motorcycle. I saw lots of the in Germany. They call them "elephant shoes". >> It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition >> to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was smogged to reduce soot emissions. The gas mileage dropped to > about 28 mpg. Kinda like dragging an anchor. It's like oxygenation. I get 25mpg on California gas and 28mpg on Nevada gas. > If you need some entertainment value, try calculating the REDUCTION in > CO2 emissions that would be produced by removing all the smog junk [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > annually. > <http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm> We all need to drive less. It's possible. I reduced from 10k+ miles per year to under 3k miles per year and more than half of that is for business. That's it. I often do oil changes based on age, not miles driven. >>> So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz >>> the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted > the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot. The NUMMI plant? They also produce Toyotas there, such as my wife's 1995 Corolla. I don't think it's onwed by GM but could be wrong. > In my recent search for a new vehicle, I ran a spreadsheet and graph > of the resale value history for various prospective vehicles. American [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perhaps they have a chance. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're > generally correct. It takes many, many years to build a reputation for reliability but less than a year to destroy it. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. >True. But Li-Ion charge cycles are pretty well researched out by now. I >doubt one can ever get to 200k miles with one set. But one can on the >first engine, and then some. Not really. The A123 Systems batteries are HD Nanophosphate technology which is allegedly better than conventional Li-Ion and LiPO batteries. Although commonly used in overpriced battery operated power tools, there's really not enough field experience to predict reliability and lifetime. <http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart1/> "Thousands and thousands" of charge cycles lifetime: <http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/life/> Sounds a bit vague to me. Fast Charging: <http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart5/> >I am not a fan of those. My sister has instant heaters and often you >either get pelted with an arctic shower or boiling water. Ok, that's an >exaggeration but it ain't comfy. That's high luxury compared to taking a shower with a rooftop solar water heater. I got introduced to those in the 1970's in Israel. Israel has lots of sun, lots of rooftops, and isn't insterested in wasting power heating what water it pulls out of the Jordan River. Haifa was literally covered with apartment buildings. The ground floor was reserved for businesses. The rest were apartments which were sold, not rented. Every apartment had its solar water heater on the roof (along with multiple TV antennas at the time) which made things rather crowded. Anyway, when you first turn on the water, you get the somewhat warm water that was sitting in the pipes. About 15 seconds later, you get scalded by maximumly hot, near boiling, water directly from the solar water heater. That slowly tapers off in temperature as the rooftop heater slowly empties. I learned to take a shower with one hand on the valves. I've done the same with flash water heaters. They do a somewhat better job of temperature regulation, but without a ballast tank, constant adjustment is required. Still, it's more energy efficient than a tank type water heater. Sacrifices must be made. >> "New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"? >> <http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it sans oil to reach a gas station but never told you? What if he never >slowed down at speed bumps? Well, the assumption was made that the used car came from a "reputable used car dealer" (a classic oxymoron) who checked out the vehicle, prerformed any required maintenance, and offered some semblance of a warranty. For used car buyers that buy their vehicles without running the VIN number through CarFax, checking the DMV history, or having it checked out by a mechanic, I suspect there will be problems. Todays OBD-II diagnostics will often uncover signs of drive train abuse, damage, and neglect. Many other things are obvious after driving a few miles. Slow down for speed bumps? My paved dirt road is nothing but speed bumps. >I saw lots of the in Germany. They call them "elephant shoes". Good name. I suspect the next step will be a true wearable automobile. LIPO electric powered. You sit down on the drive train and wheel platform, wrap the fenders, cowling, and roof around you, and drive away merilly. Maybe an inflatable body for light weight and crash resistance. When done driving, pack it back in it's case, attach a handle to one ond of the wheel platform, and carry it away like a hand truck. >It's like oxygenation. I get 25mpg on California gas and 28mpg on Nevada >gas. They also oxygenated diesel in the early 1990's using 15% ethanol. That raise the head temperature on my Dodge/Mitsubishi diesel sufficiently to crack the head. What was interesting was that I was driving it for about 6 months with a cracked head. There was no obvious deterioration in performance other than a slight drop in diesel mileage, and the mysterious disappearance of radiator water to no obvious destination. I eventually figured I had a problem when I ran the engine with the radiator cap removed, which simulated a volcanic eruption of exhaust gasses belching from the radiator. Welding the aluminium head was problematic so I opted for a factory new replacement head. Those arrive a few thousands thicker than stock which lowered the compression ratio slightly. The result was the diesel milage dropped from about 30mpg to 28mpg, but the engine stayed quite cool using the new diesel formulation. >We all need to drive less. It's possible. I reduced from 10k+ miles per >year to under 3k miles per year and more than half of that is for >business. That's it. I often do oil changes based on age, not miles driven. Yep. I must admit that I haven't tried to economize very much. The best I've done is bum rides from friends and customers. I'm still somewhat in the service and repair biz doing service calls to customers. That works out to about 12,000 miles per year for business (i.e. deductable) and 5,000 miles per year for personal use. I can probably cut both in half, but then I would have to juggle appointments and errands by location. It's easier for me to just buy a smaller economy car and not carry a warehouse full of parts with me. >> In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted >> the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot. > >The NUMMI plant? They also produce Toyotas there, such as my wife's 1995 >Corolla. I don't think it's onwed by GM but could be wrong. Yep. That's the one. However, this was in the 1970's, before 1984 when Toyota saved GM's a.s by literally taking over the plant on GM's behalf. <http://www.nummi.com> <http://www.nummi.com/timeline.php> Sorry, it's not in Milpitas but Fremont. Anyway, across the street from the parking lot was an excellent Chinese restaurant that we frequented as often as practical. The only problem was that the drive went by a cattle stock yard. The smell would ruin any lunch. The yard was also very close to Altos Computers, which may explain their premature demise. >It takes many, many years to build a reputation for reliability but less >than a year to destroy it. The common observation is that American buyers are nearly clueless. I guess the same applies to Australian buyers. See: "Large car sales on the increase" <http://www.themotorreport.com.au/752/large-car-sales-on-the-increase/> This is from June 2007, but still interesting. Its encouraging to see a consolidation in the Large and Upper Large segments which reflects both the introduction of exciting ne |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message