Impressive auto

In article >,
"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > Since electric cars take hours to charge, all you can do to ensure the
> > availability of this very expensive possession is to see that you take
> > advantage of the earliest opportunity to charge it up.
>
> A future technological advance might permit a much faster charge than
> that, perhaps within a few minutes.

It might. Or maybe we'll all get flying cars with "Mr. Fusion" power
sources...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > > Since electric cars take hours to charge, all you can do to ensure the
> > > availability of this very expensive possession is to see that you take
> > > advantage of the earliest opportunity to charge it up.
> >
> > A future technological advance might permit a much faster charge than
> > that, perhaps within a few minutes.
>
> It might. Or maybe we'll all get flying cars with "Mr. Fusion" power
> sources...

Increases in battery technology, are hardly comparable with absurdities
like flying cars and fusion technologies.

Just because current battery technology means that electric cars "take
hours to charge", doesn't mean that in the next 5 years or so, that the
charging might not be greatly speeded up.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

On Feb 5, 10:24*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:47:17 -0800 (PST), Gary V >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 4, 9:09*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:15:17 -0800 (PST), Gary V >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Human nature then says, "charge it up whenever you can".
>
> >> >> Do you fill your tank with gasoline every time you pass a gas station?
> >> >> Do you fill your stomach with food every time you pass a vending
> >> >> machine or a restaurant?
>
> >> >> So much for your simplistic view of human nature...
>
> >> >No, because I know there will be another gas station or restaurant or
> >> >convenience store another few miles
>
> >> Thanks for conceding my point.
>
> >> >There's two basic problems with plug-in electrics. *You don't know
> >> >where the next plug will be, and you don't want to wait half the day
> >> >while your battery recharges. *
>
> >> Not a problem for commuting, which is the lion's share of my driving
> >> (and, I suspect, yours also). For any use which doesn't fit that
> >> model, I will own (or rent) a concentional vehicle.
>
> >I'm glad you can afford to have two vehicles, and leave one in the
> >garage while you drive the other (or can afford exhorbitant rental
> >fees). *
>
> Where do you live, Beijing? Around here, almost *everyone* has two
> vehicles, some (like me) have three, and a few have even more,
> especially if they have teenagers living at home. In my case, I could
> *easily* replace one of my three vehicles with an electric and use it
> for commuting without any major changes in my lifestyle. Somehow, I
> doubt I am the only person in the universe who could do so.

Two vehicles per person? or per household? My wife and I both have
cars. Which one of us gets to use the one with the run-down battery
when both of us have to go somewhere farther than 10 miles?

> As for "exhorbitant rental fees," which do you think costs mo
> owning a vehicle, paying for gas, insurance, registratiuon,
> maintenance, and all the other associated costs, and then letting it
> sit in your garage most of the time, or renting a similar vehicle once
> a month or so when you actually NEED to use it?

Yes exhorbitant. You're comparing that cost to an extra vehicle that
sits in your garage until you need it. I don't have one of those. My
vehicle gets used every day; my wife's most days. We don't have an
extra spare sitting around waiting to be used if one of the cars is
low on gas. Which is essentially what you are suggesting - that you
have an IC car sitting around waiting for when you can't use your plug-
in because the distance is too far or the charge is too low.

I'm not arguing there is no use for electric cars. I'm just saying
that in today's world, and for several years to come, an electric car
cannot be considered your primary vehicle. If you can't afford to
have a spare vehicle sitting around waiting just in case you need it,
the electric car is essentially your toy.

> Here's another point to consider: electric cars have fewer parts to
> maintain. For example, there is no exhaust, so there is no exhaust
> SYSTEM. There's no oil, so no oil filter or oil changes every 3000
> miles. Ditto for the radiator coolant. There's no timing chain to
> replace every 60,000 miles. Etc. Etc. Periodic maintenance reduces
> down to rotating the tires every 5,000 miles.

And replacing a $10,000 battery every 3 years or so.

> >And that your commute pattern never unexpectedly changes, such
> >that your planned daily trip doesn't suddenly expand beyond your
> >battery charge.
>
> I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.

You can't - you're out of juice.

In article >,
Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:22:52 -0600,
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article m>,
>>David Nebenzahl > wrote:
>>>On 2/3/2008 1:42 PM Alan Baker spake thus:
>>>
>>>> You claim that electrics powered by fossil fuel generating stations are
>>>> a good idea, you have to prove *that*.
>>>
>>>I think you still need to demonstrate (not prove; this isn't a
>>>peer-reviewed scientific study) that electric cars *cannot* be powered
>>>by sources other than fossil-fuel-burning ones.
>>
>>Simple enough. Solar and wind are wholly inadequate (orders of
>>magnitude too small), and all the nuclear and hydro (in the US) is
>>already spoken for.
>
>Sure, the new power plants to generate that extra electricity don't
>exist today. Of course, the electric cars don't exist today, either.
>As much as it may surprise you, we can build both if we so choose.

Yes. But the new power plants would run on coal or other fossil
fuels. There will be no nuclear for political reasons, no hydro
because most of it is already harnessed.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
]...
> In article >,
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker > wrote:
>> >
>> > Since electric cars take hours to charge, all you can do to ensure the
>> > availability of this very expensive possession is to see that you take
>> > advantage of the earliest opportunity to charge it up.
>>
>> A future technological advance might permit a much faster charge than
>> that, perhaps within a few minutes.
>
> It might. Or maybe we'll all get flying cars with "Mr. Fusion" power
> sources...

The GM Volt is the better solution and it is scheduled to be on the market
in late 2010.

It is a plug in hybrid, but unlike other hybrids the car is always running
off of batteries that are continually charged by an engine that runs only a
generator.

The engine is running at a constant speed for maximum efficiency. The
battery provides the peak power needed for acceleration. Zero to 60 in 8
to 8.5 seconds.

The battery has a range of 40 miles and the gas tank extends the total range
to about 650 mile. It will get 50 MPG when the battery is fully discharged.

This is called a serial hybrid since it is motor to generator to battery to
electric motor to wheel. Others are parallel hybrids where the car
transfers power to the wheels from the battery OR engine depending on
driving conditions.

Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> N8N > wrote:
>>> 4) probably does not meet federal crash standards; I'm ASSuming that
>>> Aptera isn't planning on selling enough that they can't use a "low
>>> volume manufacturer" exception.
>> It's only got three wheels, so they call it a motorcycle to get around
>> crash standards.
>>
>> Not that I have a problem with that; too many requirements cause
>> stagnation. You can't build the "next best thing" because the
>> requirements were written for the previous best thing.
>
> 3 wheelers have poor stability.
>

Just because 3 wheel ATV's are unstable doesn't mean that all vehicles
with 3 wheels or wheel assemblies are so. It depends on the vehicle
characteristics.

--
--Andy

In article >,
Andrew Tompkins > wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> N8N > wrote:
> >>> 4) probably does not meet federal crash standards; I'm ASSuming that
> >>> Aptera isn't planning on selling enough that they can't use a "low
> >>> volume manufacturer" exception.
> >> It's only got three wheels, so they call it a motorcycle to get around
> >> crash standards.
> >>
> >> Not that I have a problem with that; too many requirements cause
> >> stagnation. You can't build the "next best thing" because the
> >> requirements were written for the previous best thing.
> >
> > 3 wheelers have poor stability.
> >
>
> Just because 3 wheel ATV's are unstable doesn't mean that all vehicles
> with 3 wheels or wheel assemblies are so. It depends on the vehicle
> characteristics.

For a given vehicle length and width, a three wheeled vehicle is
*always* going to be less stable than a four wheeled vehicle.

This is not to say that it can't be sufficiently stable.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> N8N > wrote:
>>>>> 4) probably does not meet federal crash standards; I'm ASSuming that
>>>>> Aptera isn't planning on selling enough that they can't use a "low
>>>>> volume manufacturer" exception.
>>>> It's only got three wheels, so they call it a motorcycle to get around
>>>> crash standards.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I have a problem with that; too many requirements cause
>>>> stagnation. You can't build the "next best thing" because the
>>>> requirements were written for the previous best thing.
>>> 3 wheelers have poor stability.
>>>
>> Just because 3 wheel ATV's are unstable doesn't mean that all vehicles
>> with 3 wheels or wheel assemblies are so. It depends on the vehicle
>> characteristics.
>
> For a given vehicle length and width, a three wheeled vehicle is
> *always* going to be less stable than a four wheeled vehicle.
>

I can agree with this if 'always' is changed to 'almost always'. There
are a few exceptions.

>
> This is not to say that it can't be sufficiently stable.
>

Exactly what I was saying.

--
--Andy

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
]...
> In article >,
> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >
>> > "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> >,
>> >> N8N > wrote:

> This is not to say that it can't be sufficiently stable.

Hell, with the stability control electronics being developed for cars these
days, they could probably make a car on a pogo stick stable!

Around 2/5/2008 5:50 PM, Jack May wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ]...
>> In article >,
>> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> N8N > wrote:
>
>> This is not to say that it can't be sufficiently stable.
>
> Hell, with the stability control electronics being developed for cars these
> days, they could probably make a car on a pogo stick stable!

Not quite a pogo stick, but still impressive "stability control":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sztUuNNBxbc


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)