The Hybrid Car Thread (split from EP088 comments)

[birdless]

Yeah, yeah.

I'm in for it now... I better make sure I profread my psots a few dozen times from now on....   

But you reminded me of the report I read about Nissan's electric car efforts; the Mixim is supposed to come out in 2010, and they unveiled the Pivo recently.  (Should I be worried that "Pivo" (Пиво) is the Russian word for "beer"?)

Alternative fuel, perhaps?

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Yeah, yeah.

I'm in for it now... I better make sure I profread my psots a few dozen times from now on....   

But you reminded me of the report I read about Nissan's electric car efforts; the Mixim is supposed to come out in 2010, and they unveiled the Pivo recently.  (Should I be worried that "Pivo" (Пиво) is the Russian word for "beer"?)

Alternative fuel, perhaps?

Finally, a use for all the crap U.S. beers clogging the market!  How much for a gallon of Bud?

[birdless]

I just watched the season premiere of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days and it was about West Virginia coal miners (Morgan Spurlock created the documentary SuperSize Me). It was an extremely interesting show. It said coal provided 50% of the world's power. I was astounded at that... I had no idea it was that much. Anyway, if you get a chance to watch it, I think most of you would probably find it interesting.

[Russell Nash]

I just watched the season premiere of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days and it was about West Virginia coal miners (Morgan Spurlock created the documentary SuperSize Me). It was an extremely interesting show. It said coal provided 50% of the world's power. I was astounded at that... I had no idea it was that much. Anyway, if you get a chance to watch it, I think most of you would probably find it interesting.

It's not hard to believe when you realise how easy it is to get power from coal.  It's the obvious choice for poor countries that can't afford to care about the mess.  The unbelievable part is that it provides approximately 55% of the US's electricty.

[Darwinist]

I just watched the season premiere of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days and it was about West Virginia coal miners (Morgan Spurlock created the documentary SuperSize Me). It was an extremely interesting show. It said coal provided 50% of the world's power. I was astounded at that... I had no idea it was that much. Anyway, if you get a chance to watch it, I think most of you would probably find it interesting.

Did it say how many years of coal this planet has left based on current usage?  What percent was nuclear? I think the US is way behind Europe as far as nuclear power production goes.  That sounds interesting, definitely going to check it out.

[birdless]

I just watched the season premiere of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days and it was about West Virginia coal miners (Morgan Spurlock created the documentary SuperSize Me). It was an extremely interesting show. It said coal provided 50% of the world's power. I was astounded at that... I had no idea it was that much. Anyway, if you get a chance to watch it, I think most of you would probably find it interesting.

Did it say how many years of coal this planet has left based on current usage?  What percent was nuclear? I think the US is way behind Europe as far as nuclear power production goes.  That sounds interesting, definitely going to check it out.

It did, I think, but I don't remember what it said... I remember being surprised... I wanna say it's like 150 years.... maybe less... I'm confusing it with some figures I saw in wikipedia.

[Troo]

There was an item on Top Gear many, many years ago addressing the problem of fuel economy in American cars versus fuel economy in the rest of the world's cars. The conclusion was essentially that Americans didn't want to "drive like Europeans" by having "small" cars.

Even though it's been proven time and again that those wacky Europeans with their "small" cars outperform the larger-engined American contemporaries every time. Essentially American cars are just throwing petrol away by using it so inefficiently, and because the government's been over-subsidising the American gas-buyer for decades there's been absolutely no impetus to make cars that do anything other than piss fuel into the wind.

GM showcased a deuterium-powered car approximately ten years ago. It's vanished. Then there was a lot of talk about hydrogen fuel-cells. Which have vanished. Everyone's scrambling to make a car which, ultimately, still sells petrol to us, because while there are far cleaner, far cheaper alternatives out there, OPEC doesn't want us to stop giving them huge wads of cash, and they've a long history of making dodgy deals with motor manufacturers to keep the cash coming in.

We can sit on our backsides waiting for this fabulous new technology, but the fact is that it already exists. We're just not demanding it loudly enough, no matter what continent we're from.

[stePH]

There was an item on Top Gear many, many years ago addressing the problem of fuel economy in American cars versus fuel economy in the rest of the world's cars. The conclusion was essentially that Americans didn't want to "drive like Europeans" by having "small" cars.

For the short time that I was listening to the podcast of "The Lone Conservative" he would go on about how the small cars that "Liberals" insist we drive are much more likely to get you killed if you get into a collision with some dickhead in a Hummer.  So apparently we should drive big wasteful cars because it's safer.

[birdless]

There was an item on Top Gear many, many years ago addressing the problem of fuel economy in American cars versus fuel economy in the rest of the world's cars. The conclusion was essentially that Americans didn't want to "drive like Europeans" by having "small" cars.

For the short time that I was listening to the podcast of "The Lone Conservative" he would go on about how the small cars that "Liberals" insist we drive are much more likely to get you killed if you get into a collision with some dickhead in a Hummer.  So apparently we should drive big wasteful cars because it's safer.

In my best Michael Palin impersonation: "What a stupid concept."

[Chodon]

For the short time that I was listening to the podcast of "The Lone Conservative" he would go on about how the small cars that "Liberals" insist we drive are much more likely to get you killed if you get into a collision with some dickhead in a Hummer.  So apparently we should drive big wasteful cars because it's safer.

I think it's an interesting fact that in the developed world 669,000 people die every year in car accidents (10th highest cause of death).  Imagine if someone came out with a new technology today that would instantly transport people to their destination, but every year 669,000 people would never show up to their destination.  It would be considered unsafe and nobody would use it. 

Also, think about the workplace requirements about cages around moving equipment, high loads, safety disconnects, etc.  Then think about walknig down a street just a few feet from 2 ton hunks of steel traveleing 70+ miles per hour.  The risks we take with driving and being around cars are extreme.  Getting behind the wheel of a car is the most dangerous thing most of us do every day.

I'm not trying to make any points with this, just putting into perspective how dangerous driving really is, regardless of the size of a vehicle.  Is it more dangerous to drive a smaller, efficient car?  Probably.  Is it worth it?  I guess that's for the market to decide. 

Personally it is something on my mind when purchasing a car.  I drive a Pontiac Vibe (which is small by American standards), but I purchased the all wheel drive and side airbags.  I have actually looked at the feasibility of installing a 4 point harness,  but there is no connection point for the fourth point and a harness isn't that much safer than a 3 point belt.  Really, helmets would save a lot of lives, but those look silly.

[birdless]

I think it's an interesting fact that in the developed world 669,000 people die every year in car accidents (10th highest cause of death).  Imagine if someone came out with a new technology today that would instantly transport people to their destination, but every year 669,000 people would never show up to their destination.  It would be considered unsafe and nobody would use it. 

I don't really know if this is valid or not, but the first thing that popped into my mind when you submitted this analogy is that the safety of the car-drivers rests in large part on something the driver can control (sobriety, speed limits, watching the road, etc.) whereas a transporter is left to technology beyond our control... so subtract the killed-by-drunk/reckless/etc-driving from that 669,000, and then find out what the number is. It might be accepted as safe as air travel, then.

I had a friend who used to jokingly marvel that we would climb into glass and steel boxes and propel ourselves around at speeds in excess of 60 mph on rock-hard surfaces... it really does sorta boggle the mind.

[stePH]

Also, think about the workplace requirements about cages around moving equipment, high loads, safety disconnects, etc.  Then think about walknig down a street just a few feet from 2 ton hunks of steel traveleing 70+ miles per hour. 

I know of no place in the world where cars are driven upwards of seventy miles per hour around pedestrian traffic.  I think the highest posted speed limit I've seen outside of a no-pedestrians highway is 40mph.

[wintermute]

I know of no place in the world where cars are supposed to be driven upwards of seventy miles per hour around pedestrian traffic.

Fixed that for you.

[Chodon]

Also, think about the workplace requirements about cages around moving equipment, high loads, safety disconnects, etc.  Then think about walknig down a street just a few feet from 2 ton hunks of steel traveleing 70+ miles per hour. 

I know of no place in the world where cars are driven upwards of seventy miles per hour around pedestrian traffic.  I think the highest posted speed limit I've seen outside of a no-pedestrians highway is 40mph.

There are a couple of roads in my hometown where there are regularly pedestrians and the posted speed limit is 55mph.  It's not uncommon to see people going 70mph on these roads.  If someone experiences a breakdown on a freeway and has to walk to a phone (been there before the cell phone days) the posted speed limit is 70mph, so people regularly go 80mph.  It's not as common to see pedestrians on a freeway as in a 55mph zone, but it does happen.

One comment worth making is since gas prices have increased I have noticed people driving slower on the freeway.  I reduced my cruising speed from 75-80 to 65-70 in an attempt to reduce my gas consumption.  Two years ago I would have been driven off the freeway for going 65 in a 70 zone, but now there are other people right along with me.  I have noticed a significant difference in gas mileage (~10%).

[Heradel]

Also, think about the workplace requirements about cages around moving equipment, high loads, safety disconnects, etc.  Then think about walknig down a street just a few feet from 2 ton hunks of steel traveleing 70+ miles per hour. 

I know of no place in the world where cars are driven upwards of seventy miles per hour around pedestrian traffic.  I think the highest posted speed limit I've seen outside of a no-pedestrians highway is 40mph.

There are a couple of roads in my hometown where there are regularly pedestrians and the posted speed limit is 55mph.  It's not uncommon to see people going 70mph on these roads.  If someone experiences a breakdown on a freeway and has to walk to a phone (been there before the cell phone days) the posted speed limit is 70mph, so people regularly go 80mph.  It's not as common to see pedestrians on a freeway as in a 55mph zone, but it does happen.

One comment worth making is since gas prices have increased I have noticed people driving slower on the freeway.  I reduced my cruising speed from 75-80 to 65-70 in an attempt to reduce my gas consumption.  Two years ago I would have been driven off the freeway for going 65 in a 70 zone, but now there are other people right along with me.  I have noticed a significant difference in gas mileage (~10%).

I think the optimum speed for gas economy for most cars/trucks is somewhere in the 40-50 mph range, but I'm half-remembering a Car Talk episode so I could be wrong.

[birdless]

I think the optimum speed for gas economy for most cars/trucks is somewhere in the 40-50 mph range, but I'm half-remembering a Car Talk episode so I could be wrong.

I can't cite my source, but i remember hearing that gas mileage takes a nosedive after 60 mph (i wished i could remember the numbers; whatever the percentage was, it was significant).

[Russell Nash]

I think the optimum speed for gas economy for most cars/trucks is somewhere in the 40-50 mph range, but I'm half-remembering a Car Talk episode so I could be wrong.

I can't cite my source, but i remember hearing that gas mileage takes a nosedive after 60 mph (i wished i could remember the numbers; whatever the percentage was, it was significant).

NPR did a story within the last two weeks (too tired to go find it now) that had a guy from Consumer Reports talking about how to save gas.  They came up with 50-60 being the best range.  It depends on the car.  The squarer (funny looking word) the car the lower the optimum speed.

Massive savings also come from making sure the car is well tuned, inflating the tires to the proper pressure, and not accelerating hard.

[stePH]

Massive savings also come from making sure the car is well tuned, inflating the tires to the proper pressure, and not accelerating hard.

I like to inflate my tires to about 60-70PSI, so that the cornering isn't too mushy.

[Russell Nash]

Massive savings also come from making sure the car is well tuned, inflating the tires to the proper pressure, and not accelerating hard.

I like to inflate my tires to about 60-70PSI, so that the cornering isn't too mushy.

But it feels like your riding through a gravel pit on roller skates.  (my obscure reference of the week)

[stePH]

Massive savings also come from making sure the car is well tuned, inflating the tires to the proper pressure, and not accelerating hard.

I like to inflate my tires to about 60-70PSI, so that the cornering isn't too mushy.

But it feels like your riding through a gravel pit on roller skates.  (my obscure reference of the week)

I'm not sure I recognize it ... I don't think it's from the same place I got the idea of improving cornering by inflating the tires to dangerously insane pressures, but I do know that when you do that the rubber feels like teak wood when you tap it with a metal rod, and when you drive you can feel every pebble in the road. (I don't drive a white Cadillac convertible BTW.)

[Troo]

Surely you should inflate your tyres to the PSI reccommended in the manual that came with the car?

At least, that's how we do it over here. But our cars have suspension... 

[Russell Nash]

Massive savings also come from making sure the car is well tuned, inflating the tires to the proper pressure, and not accelerating hard.

I like to inflate my tires to about 60-70PSI, so that the cornering isn't too mushy.

But it feels like your riding through a gravel pit on roller skates.  (my obscure reference of the week)

I'm not sure I recognize it ... I don't think it's from the same place I got the idea of improving cornering by inflating the tires to dangerously insane pressures, but I do know that when you do that the rubber feels like teak wood when you tap it with a metal rod, and when you drive you can feel every pebble in the road. (I don't drive a white Cadillac convertible BTW.)

But does it corner like a Lotus Elan.  (same place)

[stePH]

But does it corner like a Lotus Elan.  (same place)

So we're both talking about FaLiLV?  I haven't read it in over twenty years.

[Chodon]

I think the optimum speed for gas economy for most cars/trucks is somewhere in the 40-50 mph range, but I'm half-remembering a Car Talk episode so I could be wrong.

I can't cite my source, but i remember hearing that gas mileage takes a nosedive after 60 mph (i wished i could remember the numbers; whatever the percentage was, it was significant).

Car talk is awesome...I have their calendar on my desk right now.

The most efficient cruising speed depends on the car for certain.  I did some calculations on this a while ago.  If anyone is interested in a mathcad file with drag calculations let me know.  The relationship between drag and velocity is a second level quadratic (squared) relationship, so there is 4X as much drag at 60 as there is at 30.  There are also constant drag forces from rolling resistance (something over-inflating the tires will reduce).  You should NEVER exceed the PSI rating on the sidewall of the tire or you risk having a blowout due to increased temperature (and therefore pressure) at highway speeds.

[stePH]

You should NEVER exceed the PSI rating on the sidewall of the tire or you risk having a blowout due to increased temperature (and therefore pressure) at highway speeds.

So if mine say 28 in the front and 32 in the rear, I shouldn't load them up to 50PSI?