Electric cars

[Jim Yanik]

[snip]

I want FAST and SAFE, which usually implies BIG ;-)

...Jim Thompson

several Porsches and Mercedes are small,fast,yet safe.
No car should be required to withstand fast collisions or off-road
"shunts".
IMO,people SHOULD be at risk;it will make them pay more attention to
their driving,or thin out the gene pool.

IMO,good handling,braking and most importantly,the DRIVER,make a car
"safe".BTW,"safety" also includes the damage your vehicle can do to
other vehicles.
IMO,having more SUVs and "light trucks" being commonly used as
daily-driver passenger vehicles has DECREASED safety for everyone.

I forgot to mention, 5-passengers, seated in comfort, and all their
luggage for 1 week stashed in the trunk ;-)

...Jim Thompson

for those few occasions that you travel enmasse,you can RENT one of those.
You don't drive a U-Haul truck daily just because you need to move once in
a while.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Lovins says big is safer too--more crumple zone. Weight kills
(but probably the other guy).

Lecture 3, here:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

Cheers,
James Arthur

the big stuff tends to roll over,is less maneuverable(accident
AVOIDance),and harder to park.
Also more prone to "lose control",and harder to recover.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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?

Your point makes perfect sense.

Carmakers fit internal combustion engines (ICE) that
are ~8-10x oversized to ensure good acceleration.

The goal here is to make a car that has good acceleration,
but still not waste gas by being grossly overpowered on the
highway (because ICEs aren't efficient at 10% load).
Optimally loading an ICE roughly doubles its efficiency.

So as a first step toward fuel economy, just making the car
lighter--with no improvement in the drivetrain technology--
saves gas. If the car weighs a third less, you can accelerate
it with 2/3rds the motive force/energy/torque/motor. And
that's a lighter, cheaper motor.

to a point.

That still leaves the ICE oversized on the highway by the
almost same factor, but uses less gas with no need for
drivetrain improvement--if the current system is 15% tank-
to-wheels efficient, that same 15% of a smaller demand is
still a smaller number overall.

Cars are not used as much on the highway;most auto use is urban.
IMO,that is an important point.

And the highway load factor is, actually, improved, since
the 15 or 20 h.p. of fixed wind and friction loading is then
a bigger portion of the engine's total capacity, improving
the ICEs power conversion efficiency.

Next, you streamline the thing and save even more. Zero
technology risk.

There are Practical Limits to streamlining.
Also,in reducing the size,there's less room for structural safety.

Next step: if you have a hybrid or electric car, a small
electric motor can easily put out big chunks of peak power,
which is ideal. The motor can then be small and light,
sized for the continuous load, yet able to handle the peaks.

For example, my car puts out about 130 peak ft-lbs of torque
at optimum (4,500) rpm. PML Flightlink's 14.4 kW (=19 h.p.)
electric motor weighs 40 lbs. It puts out 470 ft-lbs
intermittently, 118 ft-lbs continuous.

At lowest r.p.m. ICEs' torque falls off and the electric
motor's torque advantage is even greater. This puny 19 h.p.
electric motor could kick my car's internally combusting a$$.

Plus, electric motors are much more efficient than ICEs, and
over a much wider load range. I could get an eighty--or even
a forty--h.p. electric motor and really make some smoke.

So, we're not talking about underpowered econoboxes.
We're talking fully-powered equally-performing econoboxes.


Cheers,
James Arthur

note that more autos now have 4-6-8 technology,where some cylinders are
"shut off" at cruise,when they don't need the extra power,and use no gas
for those dead cylinders.
Of course,with a 4-cyl motor,there's not much left to shut off....but in
small cars,they are already pretty efficient.

also,there are turbo motors,that produce less power and consume less fuel
off-boost,but still have good power on demand,for a small-sized motor.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:03:53 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:>
<sni



Football hooliganism is different. If 2 bunches of lads want to beat
the hell out of each other let them. Just prevent colateral damage.
It's OK providing it's between consenting adults. It's usually
prearranged "fun".

Or so the Telegraph tells you.

The world is full of nitwits who are determined to perceive every
event from their own idiosyncratic point of view.

These people are mainly economic migrants. They come to the west
because even a floor sweeper over here is better of than those that
stay behind. This is also indicated by the flow of funds back to their
homelands to help support their extended families.

That doesn't make them any happier about being sneered at and
discriminated against by the locals who prefer their neighbours to
look, and act, just the way they do.

They are significantly better off economically over here and they can
return to their homelands if they are not. There is no way you can
call them economically disadvantaged.

If you don't get the same chances at the good jobs as your neighbours
do, you are economically disadvantaged. The fact that you are doing
better than you did, or could do, in your country of origin
doesn't affect this point.

You can have the last word. You have more spare time than me.

Enough to think about what I post, rather than churning out half-baked
knee-jerk prejudice.

 

[Charlie E.]

[snip]

I want FAST and SAFE, which usually implies BIG ;-)

...Jim Thompson

several Porsches and Mercedes are small,fast,yet safe.
No car should be required to withstand fast collisions or off-road
"shunts".
IMO,people SHOULD be at risk;it will make them pay more attention to their
driving,or thin out the gene pool.

IMO,good handling,braking and most importantly,the DRIVER,make a car
"safe".BTW,"safety" also includes the damage your vehicle can do to other
vehicles.
IMO,having more SUVs and "light trucks" being commonly used as
daily-driver passenger vehicles has DECREASED safety for everyone.

I forgot to mention, 5-passengers, seated in comfort, and all their
luggage for 1 week stashed in the trunk ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Hi Jim,
But really, how often do you actually need a 5 passenger vehicle with
a weeks worth of luggage? Once a year? Twice a year? Unless you are
a big family, or a family that does a lot of soccer/baseball/football
or other sports with the kids, you don't really need that bus all the
time. It would be much more economic to just rent that monstrosity
when you actually need it, rather than be paying for its gas and
upkeep throughout the year.

That is why the small, electric commuter that can seat two people and
hold a weeks worth of groceries is usually more than sufficient.


Charlie

 

[Raveninghorde]

Enough to think about what I post, rather than churning out half-baked
knee-jerk prejudice.

I'm not racist or prejudiced. I hate eveyone equally.

 

[Rich the Newsgroup Wacko]

This is one cause of boom and bust cycles. UK Labour government declared
boom bust to be a Tory thing that they had eliminated. How wrong they were.

The other big one is a chain of highly improbable events that have been
misestimated by otherwise very clever people.

Famour examples include:

<snip>

<---quote--->
If you had purchased $1000 of shares in Delta Airlines one year ago,
you would have $49.00 today.

If you had purchased $1000 of shares in AIG one year ago,
you would have $33.00 today.

If you had purchased $1000 of shares in Lehman Brothers one year ago,
you would have $0.00 today.

But---- if you had purchased $1000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer,
then turned in the aluminum cans for recycling refund,
you would have received $214.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment plan is to drink heavily & recycle.

It's called the 401-Keg.

<---/quote--->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

DemocRATs are "do as I say,not as I do", "And don't question what I say or
do.","Go along with our policies,because we won."

And this is different from the repugnocons how, exactly?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[James Arthur]

the big stuff tends to roll over,is less maneuverable(accident
AVOIDance),and harder to park.
Also more prone to "lose control",and harder to recover.

I should clarify: 'big' meaning 'longer and wider' for more
crush zone, not 'top heavy and fat.'

Lovins agrees and makes the same points you do about the
SUVs' illusion of safety.

It's an illusion to think an unskilled driver in a top-heavy tank
is protected. They aren't, and it makes them a menace to the rest
of us.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

You have an extremely complex transfer function with hundreds of variables
and neither of us has any clue where the polls and zeros lie yet you make a

....

The polls lie by asking loaded questions.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Corporate taxes, certainly. And unemployment, FICA, and workman's
comp. Shift it all to sales taxes. Or export jobe to places that don't
have those costs.

No! No! No! NOT a "sales" tax - that punishes the merchant.

Make it a "PURCHASE" tax, or outgo tax, or expenditure tax; the BUYER
pays the tax.

Of course, the rich would fight that tooth and nail - under the current
system, the rich just hire squadrons of lawyers to evade the current taxes.

Buy a $100.00 suit, pay $10.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $2,000.00 suit, pay $200.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $40,000,000.00 corporate jet, pay $4,000,000.00 purchase tax.

Of course, there would be no purchase tax on grocery store food, anything
medical, or used stuff (thrift shop clothes, yard sale stuff, etc.)

That would be not only fair, but it should please the "liberals",
because that would be a way to "soak the rich".

But it seems that common sense is a dying breed these days. Sigh.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

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.

The market itself is the most ruthless, brutal regulator there is. If
people don't like your crap, they won't buy it.

Harry Browne was aware of this in 1973:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/HIFF/

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

.

I'd argue that the only way to get
a stable economy is to moderate -and ultimately stop- overall growth.

But trying to do that by mandate is just more excessive government.

Mother nature will automagically put a stop to exponential (or maybe
asymptotic) growth.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Charlie E.]

Batteries are lots of trouble in traditional gas
powered cars in cold weather.

Wouldn't batteries as primary power source
be a bad idea in colder northern states?

How economical would all electric cabin heat be?

Well, lithium batteries do better in the cold than other technologies,
but are still effected. And electric cabin heat would really drain a
pack fast, you would probably find some sort of heat pump arrangement
for heating and cooling.

It would also become common for employers and cities to have charging
stations in the parking lots. Some of that charge could be used for
'battery warmers' just like you have engine warmers today for cold
climes.

Charlie

 

[Frithiof Jensen]

Why did the war finally end the depression??? Massive federal spending
causing full employment, that's why.

Being the only industrialised country still owning an intact manufacturing
had everything to do with it.

Week spending, tax cuts and other
gimmicks will NOT do it.

No, and neither will "massive federal spending" - but it will kill the USD
(which is kind-of a plan, assuming one can transfer all the debt to the
FED/Treasury before the wogs smell the ruse)!

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Corporate taxes, certainly. And unemployment, FICA, and workman's
comp. Shift it all to sales taxes. Or export jobe to places that don't
have those costs.

John

EVERY place has those costs. The difference is how much the costs are
and who pays them.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

No! No! No! NOT a "sales" tax - that punishes the merchant.

Make it a "PURCHASE" tax, or outgo tax, or expenditure tax; the BUYER
pays the tax.

Of course, the rich would fight that tooth and nail - under the current
system, the rich just hire squadrons of lawyers to evade the current taxes.

Buy a $100.00 suit, pay $10.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $2,000.00 suit, pay $200.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $40,000,000.00 corporate jet, pay $4,000,000.00 purchase tax.

Of course, there would be no purchase tax on grocery store food, anything
medical, or used stuff (thrift shop clothes, yard sale stuff, etc.)

That would be not only fair, but it should please the "liberals",
because that would be a way to "soak the rich".

But it seems that common sense is a dying breed these days. Sigh.

Thanks,
Rich

I think it would be more reasonable to double the tax on groceries and
medical because people need more incentive to consume sh^H^Hstuff that
isn't essential, and people need more incentive to stop being poor--
it's way to easy to be poor these days. Call it a "tax on poverty".
Buy a cheap-ass $100 suit and pay $20 tax. Buy a decent $2,000 suit
and it's tax free!

Remember, whatever you tax you get LESS of!

 

[krw]

No! No! No! NOT a "sales" tax - that punishes the merchant.

Make it a "PURCHASE" tax, or outgo tax, or expenditure tax; the BUYER
pays the tax.

The BUYER pays sales taxes. The equivalent tax on a merchant is a
VAT. The difference between the two taxes is who pays.

Of course, the rich would fight that tooth and nail - under the current
system, the rich just hire squadrons of lawyers to evade the current taxes.

Buy a $100.00 suit, pay $10.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $2,000.00 suit, pay $200.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $40,000,000.00 corporate jet, pay $4,000,000.00 purchase tax.

That sort of thinking put a *lot* of people out of work in the
Carter days.

Of course, there would be no purchase tax on grocery store food, anything
medical, or used stuff (thrift shop clothes, yard sale stuff, etc.)

Now you're back to your dreaded government making win/lose
decisions. I thought you didn't like the government making such
decisions.

That would be not only fair, but it should please the "liberals",
because that would be a way to "soak the rich".

I always knew you were a weenie.

But it seems that common sense is a dying breed these days. Sigh.

Certainly a lack of it in your neighborhood.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Do the Chinese have all those costs?

Well, since they have the services in one way or another they have the
costs (health care and other taxes) and they have payroll taxes and
user fees. Someone is paying them.

If there's an added employment tax that would eliminate (or greatly
reduce) the need to pay for health care insurance for your employees,
that increased tax might benefit you greatly if it reduced your
overall costs. That's why businesses like the car companies would not
mind universal health care at all.

As far as China goes, I think an engineer netting 5 whatevers per
whatever was actually costing around 8 gross, which doesn't sound all
that different. The lower paid assembly line workers get food and
accomodation supplied by the company, as well as health care (I
understand that the biggest footwear factory has their own hospital
with a staff of 150). I'm sure the standards of all those items are
not very high, but they're better than rural standards.

If the population of the USA (or Canada) has to pay X dollars to keep
their beloved government running, they can pay it as sales tax, or
they can let their (former) employers pay it for them. In the first
case, they have jobs, so can afford the taxes.

Sure. I guess you could argue that taxing captive businesses does
little harm (for example, gambling houses and car washes). It's just
yet another hidden tax.

And in the first case, domestic and imported goods are being taxed
equally.

True. Of course if the workers have to pay more total tax they'll want
more net money but that's another story.

The more employment I generate, the more I pay in unemployment taxes.
The more I invest in productive assets, the more I have to pay the
fed+state+city governments. Does that make any sense to anybody?

John

At least the medicinal variety of leech eventually gets sated and
drops off!

 

[James Arthur]

The more employment I generate, the more I pay in unemployment taxes.
The more I invest in productive assets, the more I have to pay the
fed+state+city governments. Does that make any sense to anybody?

It makes perfect sense--you can't tax the unproductive, because
they're...unproductive. Govmn't has to take their money from those
who have it, and while it's still in their hand (or before).

They've got no choice but to tax the stuff that works to support
the stuff that doesn't.


Kind of anti-optimal from a stimulus/job-creating point of view.

James Arthur