Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles

wrote:
> Steve Bigelow > wrote:
>
>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>
> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
> which would seem to be 54MPG US.
>
> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>
> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
> An Insight without the hybrid?

There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the
US.

FanJet wrote:
> I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have
> sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by creating

just YOUR opinion. one of the interesting features on the newer prius is
a "thermos" type coolant storage chamber, designed to keep engine
coolant warm long after the car has been shut off.

this aids the GASOLINE engine in cold weather starts, by helping the
GASOLINE engine get to operating temp quicker with fewer emissions, and
can be applied to other GASOLINE engines as well.


> and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big improve at all.
> Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid, they veil the truth in
> a bunch of marketing crapola.

oh, dont get all ****y because the japanese are actually spending money
on R&D, while the USA car companies trot out another ****ty truck-based
land yacht.

wrote:
> Steve Bigelow > wrote:
>
>
>>How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>
>
> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo, which
> would seem to be 54MPG US.
>
> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>
> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
> An Insight without the hybrid?
>
or a diesel hybrid insight?

In article >, "FanJet" > wrote:

>I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have
>sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by creating
>and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big improve at all.
>Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid, they veil the truth in
>a bunch of marketing crapola.


FanJet, you obviously know a fair amount, but even more obvious,
your mind is made up You are not going to be swayed by either the
actual data (ex: mpg of Civic Hybrid vs Civic, mpg of Prius compared
to any other like-size and performing vehicle), or by technical
arguments (you haven't responded to my post where I list FOUR ways
that hybrid design improves mpg). You also seem to see
a lot of conspiracies (the above, and auto OEM's "insisting" that
we use 5/20 oil).

As to wall-plug hybrids, I'm pretty sure they come out ahead of the
game in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency. Consider:

Well-to-electric efficiency (US Mix) ~ 41%
Round trip battery efficiency (charge-discharge) 80-90%
Motor efficiency ~85%
Multiply all three for the wallplug hybrid: 28-31%
Compare to a typical ICE on a normal drive: ~20%

Plus the electric is from a variety of sources, not just crude oil,
which is a benefit for "energy independence" (which is a bit of a
pipe dream, but that's another debate).

Yes, there is hype with hybrids. Big surprise, there is hype with
most products and new technologies, both for and against. Yeah, it
isn't a free lunch. But I do think it is quite clear that hybrids
can increase fuel economy by say 20-30% across the board, and often
quite a bit more. Again, at some cost ($, mass, complexity). So
no, it might not be a slam-dunk. But I'd say it is a legitimate
choice and I welcome the increased availability.

Gordon McGrew wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 04:21:09 GMT, "FanJet" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:30:50 GMT, "FanJet" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>
>>>Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control
>>>these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the
>>>Prius' gasoline motor which would explain it's exceptional fuel
>>>economy. The computer only improves economy because it has a battery
>>>and motor to control. If manufacturers could get the same benefit
>>>without these expensive parts, why don't they do it? The fact is that
>>>the most advanced gas engine with computer control cannot match this
>>>efficiency level, at least not with acceptable performance.
>>
>>No, the fact is, with the exception of a truly minor assist from
>>regenerative braking, the hybrid's only source of energy is gasoline - just
>>like a non-hybrid.
>
>
> What did I say that would lead anyone to believe otherwise? The issue
> is how the hybrid system improves the efficiency of conversion of
> gasoline to kinetic energy. Saying that the only source of energy is
> gasoline is a red herring.
>
> Actually, the only source of energy is the Sun. Mother Nature just
> converted a portion of the solar energy to oil for our convenience.

I've always thought of it as a cruel hoax.

<vbg>

SoCalMike wrote:
> wrote:
>> Steve Bigelow > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>>
>>
>> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
>> which would seem to be 54MPG US.
>>
>> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>>
>> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
>> An Insight without the hybrid?
>>
> or a diesel hybrid insight?

Honda would get more than it's worth. A plan would be to wait a couple of
years. If the smart42 turns out to be reliable and we get it in the states,
I'd buy one in a hearbeat.

Dave wrote:
> In article >, "FanJet"
> > wrote:
>
>> Really depends on where and how you're driving, doesn't it? No doubt
>> the HX equals or bests the hybrid in some circumstances. In the end,
>> it takes 745.7 Watts for each horsepower generated by a hybrid -
>> completely ignoring losses. Except for the small amount generated by
>> regenerative braking, the rest comes from gasoline.
>
> Regen braking can, in theory, recover about 30-40% of the energy
> used on the EPA city cycle. In reality, with losses it is probably
> more like 10-15% increase in fuel economy.

In real-world situations, I think 10% is overly generous but I'll go with
that.

> A hybrid also allows the designer to readily shut the engine off on
> idle. In theory, you could do this with any engine and just use the
> 12V+starter to get it going again. Practically, no one does this.
> I suppose for drivability, NVH, and maybe starter motor wear issues.

For ICE powered vehicles, this could easily be fixed with computer software,
inexpensive mechanical changes to the engine and a starter motor with real
bearings and an electronic commutator. In fact some Ford Focus engines
already do part of what's needed. In an overheating situation, they're able
to shutdown certain cylinders, turning them into air pumps that cool the
engine.

> A hybrid also allows you to run closer to the sweet spot of the
> engine. For example, a gasoline ICE maxes out at about 35% thermal
> efficiency. But in the normal driving load & rpm, it is more like
> 20%. By running at a higher load, where it is more efficient, than
> required. And feeding this to the battery. Then subsequently
> running at virtually no load, and letting the battery+motor run the
> vehicle, the average ICE operating efficiency is increased.

For ICE powered vehicles this can all be taken care of with improved
transmissions. CVTs and 6 speed automatics are a start.

> Last, a hybrid allows downsizing the engine without sacrificing
> performance. A smaller engine runs at an average higher load, where
> (see above) it is more efficient.

But performance is sacrificed. The efficiency goals could probably be met
with the suggestions I made. If we don't try, we'll never know. The
incentive for trying would be a more economical, less complex vehicle that
could be sold for a more reasonable price, thus reaching a larger audience.

> So I'd say there are 4 solid reasons why a hybrid can return better
> fuel economy.

I say they're not nearly as clear cut as you make them seem.

> Certainly there are minuses (cost, weight, complexity), and yes, the
> real-world gains never seem to match the advertised EPA numbers.

These things are rightly discussed in cafes at the other end of the
Universe.

Dave wrote:
> In article >, "FanJet"
> > wrote:
>
>> I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have
>> sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by
>> creating and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big
>> improve at all. Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid,
>> they veil the truth in a bunch of marketing crapola.
>
>
> FanJet, you obviously know a fair amount, but even more obvious,
> your mind is made up You are not going to be swayed by either the
> actual data (ex: mpg of Civic Hybrid vs Civic, mpg of Prius compared
> to any other like-size and performing vehicle), or by technical
> arguments (you haven't responded to my post where I list FOUR ways
> that hybrid design improves mpg). You also seem to see
> a lot of conspiracies (the above, and auto OEM's "insisting" that
> we use 5/20 oil).

I missed your 4 point post but recently replied. To be clear, I rather like
the Prius and might consider purchasing one. I like gadgets and that'd be
the reason for the purchase. I'd probably spend much time enhancing
performance (driving style wise) and would probably post some impressive
MPG figures. Nothing much more to say about 5/20 oil. The manufacturers made
the change, told us it was for improved fuel economy which, as you noted, it
doesn't deliver. I just reported the change.

> As to wall-plug hybrids, I'm pretty sure they come out ahead of the
> game in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency. Consider:
>
> Well-to-electric efficiency (US Mix) ~ 41%
> Round trip battery efficiency (charge-discharge) 80-90%
> Motor efficiency ~85%
> Multiply all three for the wallplug hybrid: 28-31%
> Compare to a typical ICE on a normal drive: ~20%

Way too many variables for me to deal with now.

> Plus the electric is from a variety of sources, not just crude oil,
> which is a benefit for "energy independence" (which is a bit of a
> pipe dream, but that's another debate).

Depends on location. I'm not overly fond of coal fired generation either but
it's got to come from somewhere.

> Yes, there is hype with hybrids. Big surprise, there is hype with
> most products and new technologies, both for and against. Yeah, it
> isn't a free lunch. But I do think it is quite clear that hybrids
> can increase fuel economy by say 20-30% across the board, and often
> quite a bit more. Again, at some cost ($, mass, complexity). So
> no, it might not be a slam-dunk. But I'd say it is a legitimate
> choice and I welcome the increased availability.

I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd
popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would
make dealerships very wealthy indeed.

FanJet wrote:
>
> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd
> popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would
> make dealerships very wealthy indeed.

im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
"retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
company importing it?

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:47:45 GMT, "FanJet" >
wrote:

>> What did I say that would lead anyone to believe otherwise? The issue
>> is how the hybrid system improves the efficiency of conversion of
>> gasoline to kinetic energy. Saying that the only source of energy is
>> gasoline is a red herring.
>
>'Gasoline only energy source' needs repeating because inserting energy
>conversions into an existing system doesn't magically result in an
>efficiency improvement. In the case of the hybrid, the real improvement is
>small and it is largely due to increased efficiencies that could be
>economically added to non-hybrid vehicles - like low resistance tyres, for
>example. Of course, like other efficiency improving hybrid systems, not
>everyone likes the results. In this case, the handling ability of low
>resistance tyres sux.

Let me explain it to you this way. They hybrid system allows the
horribly inefficient ICE to run closer to its theoretical efficiency
of 30% instead of its usual 20%. (These numbers come form other
posters in this thread along with explanations of the various ways in
which ICE efficiency is enhanced by the hybrid system.) Lets say that
instead of 20%, ICE efficiency goes to 25%. Now most of that energy
bypasses the hybrid system and goes straight to the wheels - no
conversion inefficiency. And the portion that does get converted
let's say it is the entire 5% gain, is handled more efficiently than
ICE. Let's say it is 50% efficient in total. That would mean that
overall efficiency of the gasoline-only powered vehicle would have
increased form 20 to 22.5%, a 12.5% increase.

Admittedly these numbers are made up but the reality is that the
system does make the vehicle much more efficient. I Googled the Civic
Hybrid (a great test bed since it is available with and without the
hybrid system) and found A Motor Trend one year test:

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/oney...ct/index1.html

"We experimented with driving style to determine its impact on fuel
economy. One week, we'd be miserly efficient, carefully monitoring
shift points, accelerating slowly, and keeping speed under 65 mph on
Interstates. The next week, we'd drive it like a teenager in a
vinyl-emblazoned Si, going full throttle at all times. The 1100-mile
experiment using the exact same route showed mild driving returned
48.2 mpg and wild driving netted 46.1 mpg. Needless to say, that was
the end of granny mode." (They actually ended up getting about 41 mpg
over the 23,000 mile test.)

Now, I don't know what kind of milage the regular Civic gets in
typical driving, but I guess it might be 35 mpg on a good day. If so,
the hybrid is 17 - 33% more efficient. How much of that do you think
can be attributed to tires?



>> Of course, any conversion from one kind of energy to another involves
>> inefficiencies. Merely listing them out says nothing about the
>> overall efficiency of the system.
>
>When they are non-existent in the original system, listing them becomes very
>important.

List them all you want, but they don't alter the real world reality
that the hybrid system increases efficiency as measured in mpg of
gasoline, the only energy source they use.

>> Honda did use regenerative braking of a sort on a Civic model about 15
>> years ago. The computer would only allow the alternator to supply
>> power when the vehicle was decelerating (or if the battery charge
>> dropped too low.) It's benefit was pretty small.
>
>So simple. They should've kept it.

You missed the part about the benefit being very small.


>> You seem to believe that everyone who buys a hybrid thinks he owns a
>> perpetual motion machine. The fact is that the performance boost is
>> only needed for a short time. Most car engines spend only 1% of their
>> working hours producing their rated horsepower. There is lots of
>> extra capacity for charging the batteries.
>
>This depends entirely on need. Some needs are serious and immediate. For
>example, if I've just exhausted the battery by getting to speed and jocking
>for position on an interstate, what happens if I need maneuvering power to
>avoid a potential accident situation?

To exhaust the battery you would have to have been driving like a
maniac for an extended period of time.

> In this case, today's hybrid is
>actually a safety liability. I'd be interested in know the source for your
>use of 1%.

Common sense. If I try to get maximum power out of my engine for more
than a minute at a time, the fuel shuts off because the speed has
reached 130 mph. What percent of the time do you spend driving with
your foot on the floor?

> You need to keep in mind that the 'lots of extra capacity for
>charging the batteries' consumes gasoline that would not be consumed in a
>non-hybrid vehicle.

But it is consuming it more efficiently and you will get it back when
the motor assists.

>> Other posters have listed numerous reasons why hybrid systems increase
>> efficiency. It could be all academic except that hybrid cars are at
>> the top of the chart for high-milage gasoline road cars.
>
>Other than quoting MPG figures, not really.

Do you have a better way of measuring the efficiency of a
gasoline-only powered vehicle.

>The only system that is a net +
>is regenerative braking and, truth be told, it's not that big a deal. The
>chart topping had much more to do with driving style & political posturing
>than science.

How does political posturing affect fuel efficiency? And what driving
style do I have to adopt to get 46 mpg out of my GS-R?