Electric cars

[James Arthur]

Although that falls down if you have regenerative braking. Or if you're
cruising on a level road. Or if the mass of the car is small compared to
that of the occupants.

Well we were speaking of acceleration, which is what engines are
currently sized for.

Cruising takes way less power, if you have regenerative braking
then you've already got a better drivetrain with a smaller, more
optimal ICE, and most cars carry but one passenger most of the time.

So, unless you weigh 2,200 lbs, none of your conditions normally
apply.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Michael wrote:
[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?
On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine.

That's as idiotic as 200hp ! 0 - 60 in one minute maybe ?

ON AVERAGE, dear Sir. On average. I've said nothing about peak power.
Now that we're at it, to get a 1000kg car to, say, 100km/h in 10
seconds would require about 45kW, neglecting friction losses.
Round that up to 50kW. But it would still consume some 10
to 15kW _on average_.

Jeroen Belleman

Right. I measured my car, and found it uses 11 kW cruising at 112 km/h.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Ecnerwal]

can't be repaired easily,not practical for mass manufacturing.
Composites are actually quite easy to repair - drop by a boatyard
sometime. The same bondo that will fill a dent on your car and them make
it rust out from behind will fill a hole on your composite panel and not
make it rust out - or you could actually use the better stuff and the
fix will be as strong as the original panel. In either case, the
structure that the repair is fixed to won't defeat the repair by rusting
away from under it.

Lovins touts exactly the opposite--the technology is xxxx-fiber
thermoplastic composite.

As might not occur to the sunny southwestern portion of the group, old
cars wouldn't need to be recycled nearly so much if they were not rusted
out - you could just keep driving them, as it might make sense to do the
sort of repairs that don't make sense when the repair will last longer
than the "designed to rust away" car. Saturn provides a fine example of
getting this exactly wrong - plastic fenders that don't rust away, brake
lines that did, repeatedly, (indeed entire brake calipers and rotors
that did, repeatedly) and several other corrosion traps - but it had
fine looking fenders when it was hauled away...

 

[Ben Bradley]

Just put an added 50W towards making roaring noises and they will be
happy.

Be sure it's hardwired to make some noise at all times the
"ignition" is on. Don't tell the rednecks, but you're also fixing the
main pedestrian complaint of electrics cars, that they make no noise
and are thus dangrous to pedestrians, especially the blind, who don't
and can't hear an oncoming vehicle.

 

[[email protected]]

And France has had serious rioting from its muslim community. The UK
has had some problems with riots and of course several bombings.

So what? Economically disadvantaged areas do go in for rioting, pretty
much
independent of the religious persuasion of the people involved

And the UK allows the most extreme muslims to hide here rather deporting
back to Egypt etc.

The UK won't deport these trouble makers because Egypt, Algeria etc
might infringe their human rights, well tough scum like Abu Hamza
deserve to be treated by the standards they preach.

Well, you've made your own opinion about the rule of law pretty clear.
Unfortunately, your local
police are unlikely to do you as you seem to want then to do to
others.

There is an ongoing problem with girls being sent from UK to Pakistan
for forced marriages to cousins. Certainly the ethnically challenged
are outbreading the native population and the UK health service is
struggling to cope with the baby boom.

Oh? Really? And your evidence for this impropbable claim is what?
I expect you will cite one of the Telegraph''s moronic editorials as
if it meant something.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-sho...

The Telegraph is newspaer written by right-wing nit wits for right-
wing nitwits.

All the judge is actually saying is that in civil cases people can
contract to have
their differences resolved in any court they like, or by an
arbitrator. There's nothing
new in that.

The UK does kowtow to the muslim predjudices. All they have to say its
Islam and they get preety well their own way.

When it doesn't make any signficant difference - as you'd expect in a
sensible multi-cultural society.

Veils in court for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6134804.stm

Note this may have changed since the news item but it illustrates the
continous pressure to accomadate.

So what? Makes a nice change from judges insisting women that had to
wear skirts, rather than trousers.

Also the muslims make repeated attempts to have girls go to school in
veils.

Again, so what? Are you going to be ancient British and insist that
the only acceptable uniform is coat of woad?

 

[Jim Yanik]

That's one of my gripes--I don't want a nanny car. I stop faster
manually than with antilock brakes, I fasten my own seatbelt, and
I don't mind rolling up my own windows. Oh, and I check my tire
pressure too. I'd rather save the weight, complexity, and expense,
but Congress won't let me.

Their goal is safety, but the best safety comes from learning to
drive well, practicing maneuvers occasionally, then being careful
on the road. Making a crashproof car is great, but not crashing
is even safer.

I agree with that.
IMO,It should be the operators choice to not wear seatbelts or MC
helmet,BUT,auto/MC insurers should not have to pay medical claims for those
not wearing their seatbelts or helmet.

You mean those famed innovators at the Big 3? If they already meet
standards, where's the incentive? And even Japanese car makers are
slow to change: ultra-conservative.

Technically it's pretty easy--hanging sheet metal on light, stamped
frame supports just doesn't absorb much energy, or provide much
protection.

that is why the "rollcage" construction of the passenger compartment.

Steel is soft; a side impact will sag it like a suspension bridge
between supports, no matter how strong. And it has to be very,
strong to resist much at all.

Lovins' deal is to deploy internal crush cones pointing outward
inside the structures. Like the highway crash barriers. They're
stiff, light, and absorb a huge amount of energy as they collapse,
protecting you.

except that in practice,it's not economically feasible.
Else the manufacturers WOULD be using it.
The advantages being too great to ignore....allegedly.

Could be. Lovins is selling, but he's a physicist, knows his numbers,
and makes a decent pitch.

Even if he's a little fast and loose, he rightly points out that
streamlining and saving weight is _the_ way, and makes a number of
good suggestions in that direction.

passenger autos already have gone a long ways towards "streamlining";
HOWEVER,there's a point at where the interior space becomes impractical for
more than 2 people,or for elderly,etc....

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Comrade Jim, I think he's been pretty frank about his real goal,
which is redistribution of wealth.

Yeah,and the Narod has pretty much denied or not heard any of it.

The theory is that those without means have been cheated,
and those with means got it unfairly.

As for freedom, taxes are necessary, but must be applied wisely, for
there is no more certain abridgment of freedom than a government which
requires its citizens to spend half their lives in its service.

Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Democracy is two foxes and a chicken voting on
what's for dinner." -various

AGREED!

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Michael wrote:
[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?
On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine.

That's as idiotic as 200hp ! 0 - 60 in one minute maybe ?

ON AVERAGE, dear Sir. On average. I've said nothing about peak power.
Now that we're at it, to get a 1000kg car to, say, 100km/h in 10
seconds would require about 45kW, neglecting friction losses.
Round that up to 50kW. But it would still consume some 10
to 15kW _on average_.

Jeroen Belleman

Right. I measured my car, and found it uses 11 kW cruising at 112 km/h.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Yeah,and now you gotta accellerate to get around that semi before
xxwhateverxx happens....

ever been in an underpowered car,particularly a econobox?
Or had to wait behind one while they waited for an opening they could move
out into?

 

[Jim Yanik]

Obama will see to that ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Just clip a playing card to the spokes of one of the wheels.
like we used to do on our bicycles.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

AGREED!

Does anybody remember when we had "checks and balances"?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Raveninghorde]

So what? Economically disadvantaged areas do go in for rioting, pretty
much
independent of the religious persuasion of the people involved

Not in the UK. I can't remember any rioting in the last 30 years or so
which has been caused by disadvantaged ethnic majority kids. The riots
in the 1980s were afro carribean, Toxteth and Brixton, and more
recently asian, Bradford.

And the muslim community seems to glorify in it:

http://tv.muxlim.com/video/rv5jXPK7SNA/bradford-riots/

The London bombings weren't due to economic disadvantage.

Well, you've made your own opinion about the rule of law pretty clear.
Unfortunately, your local
police are unlikely to do you as you seem to want then to do to
others.

I haven't stated my views on the rule of law just that a law
protecting the human rights of scum is wrong. The UK won't even deport
convicted criminals in case their rights are infringed. As far as I
am concerned if you murder, rob, rape or commit violence you put
yourself outside the protection of the law.

If people cause trouble in their own country we shouldn't protect
them. That is totally different to giving asylum to innocent people.

Oh? Really? And your evidence for this impropbable claim is what?
I expect you will cite one of the Telegraph''s moronic editorials as
if it meant something.

Google for yourself if you don't like my sources.

Forced marriage:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/nationals/forced-marriage-unit/

Government wouldn't have a unit for something that didn't happen.

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/socialcare/safeguarding/forcedmarriage/

http://www.forcedmarriage.nhs.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783351.stm

http://www.lbp.police.uk/publications/dealing_with/introduction_to.htm

http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/11/british-asian-forced-marriages

And one from the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...dlands-girl-rescued-from-forced-marriage.html


Birth rate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7216988.stm

/quote

Ten years on, spending has risen to £1.6bn, with almost one baby in
four delivered to a mother born overseas.

While the number of babies born to British mothers has fallen by
44,000 in total since the mid-1990s, the figure for babies born to
foreign mothers has risen by 64,000 - a 77% increase which has pushed
the overall birth-rate to its highest level for 26 years.

/end quote

The Telegraph is newspaer written by right-wing nit wits for right-
wing nitwits.

All the judge is actually saying is that in civil cases people can
contract to have
their differences resolved in any court they like, or by an
arbitrator. There's nothing
new in that.

Is the Guardian more acceptable?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/08/uk.religion

/quote

The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political
spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in
Britain and argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed
"unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of
England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would
help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to
the British legal system.

/end quote

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

/quote

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts
given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to
rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those
involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with
the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or
High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be
enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

/end quote

When it doesn't make any signficant difference - as you'd expect in a
sensible multi-cultural society.


So what? Makes a nice change from judges insisting women that had to
wear skirts, rather than trousers.


Again, so what? Are you going to be ancient British and insist that
the only acceptable uniform is coat of woad?

From Bradford again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6046992.stm


/quote

A Muslim woman has been suspended by a school in West Yorkshire after
she insisted on wearing a veil in lessons.

/end quote

Your problem is you are blinded by your liberalism. Or some might say
you are a quadruped moron...

 

[Rich Grise]

Oh, and I hasten to add: you could use today's same engine
oversizing ratios to propel a half-weight car to today's
same performance, with an engine that's half today's size.

Cutting weight has many benefits.

As for aerodynamics, yes, those can be improved a lot too;
Lovins details how.

So, we should all drive Indy cars with lawnmower engines? ;-P

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

yeah,and WHY hasn't anyone else used this "simple" technology?
If it's that good,and simple.....

You've answered your own question. it's _because_ it's that good, and
simple, and so unacceptable to the bureaucrats and the people who want
to be "safe" without bothering to learn to drive.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

....
That's one of my gripes--I don't want a nanny car. I stop faster
manually than with antilock brakes, I fasten my own seatbelt, and
I don't mind rolling up my own windows. Oh, and I check my tire
pressure too. I'd rather save the weight, complexity, and expense,
but Congress won't let me.

Their goal is safety, but the best safety comes from learning to
drive well, practicing maneuvers occasionally, then being careful
on the road. Making a crashproof car is great, but not crashing
is even safer.

Not to mention orders of magnitude cheaper. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

John Larkin wrote:

For the same acceleration, a half-weight car needs half the
gas. Rather than go smaller, Lovins does it by lightweight
materials and design.

His preferred material is a carbon-fiber composite. That's
not currently cheap, but he argues that it easily could be.

Didn't Corvettes used to be made of fiberglass? (or maybe they
still are?)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

nuke waste remains at the power plants because enviroNIMBYs put so many
roadblocks in place;Yucca Mtn. is a safe place to put the waste.
Other countries like Japan and France effectively deal with their nuclear
waste,and generate far more of their nations powwer from nukes.
If THEY can do it,so can we.

If it's such energetic stuff (which is their excuse for the NIMBY syndrome),
then put one of those slugs at the bottom of my swimming pool and I'll
use it to heat my house.

Maybe we should start a "YIMBY" movement. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

might be met by putting solar arrays atop Al Gore's house.

Just give him liposuction, and the fat would produce enough biodeisel
to provide all of the US's energy needs for a year.

(don't forget to liposuck the fat head as well.) ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is inherently unstable with built in positive
feedback mechanisms

WHo in hell ever told you that? Your union boss?

Can you detail exactly which mechanism you're talking about?

Or do you simply not know what "laissez-faire" means?

Or are you the unionist type who can't function without the Nanny State?

The Free Market has built-in NEGATIVE feedback - if the price of your crap
is too high, then people won't buy it. Unions are terrified of competition.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[James Arthur]

So, we should all drive Indy cars with lawnmower engines? ;-P

Cheers!
Rich

No, just make 'em pointy on the front and smooth underneath,
that's good enough. Squared-off boxes are a serious drag.

Ditto outboard mirrors, but less so.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Yes, which is why it's disappointing that nobody seems to be
discussing damping mechanisms, or anything else that will improve the
markets or the economy in the long term.

John

Good point. The main damping mechanism ensuring stability
against upward mania is fear: fear of losing your investment.

That mechanism is currently being nulled out on an historic
scale, with a rush for more. That's bad. Long-term and short.

James Arthur