Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics

> wrote
>>> "The efficiency of an internal combustion engine is
>>> based on total energy of the fuel and the amount of
>>> energy used to perform useful work. So by
>>> legislating a fuel efficiency increase of about 40%,
>>> our Congress Critters were attempting to rewrite Laws
>>> of Thermodynamics."

V for Vendicar wrote:
>> Over 30 teams from the U.S., Canada, India and Bahrain participated in
>> the
>> SAE's annual mileage competition June 7-8, 2007 in Marshall, Michigan.
>> The
>> competition requires the development and construction of a single person,
>> fuel efficient vehicle. All vehicles must be powered by a small
>> four-cycle
>> engine, have a minimum of three wheels, and the driver must be fully
>> enclosed to prevent contact with the ground. The winner is based on a
>> combination of best fuel economy and points from technical inspections of
>> the vehicles. The 2006 winner, the University of British Columbia,
>> achieved
>> a record 3,145 miles per gallon!


"Brent P" > wrote
> These vehicles are completely irrelevant to anything useful for
> transportation on public roads.

The KKKonservative claim was that such cars can't exist because they would
require a rewrite of the laws of thermodynamics.

When were those thermodynamic laws rewritten to allow the 3,145 MPG car in
the above contest?


"Brent P" > wrote
> They are as I recall a recombent bicycle with an ICE that runs at full
> throttle and then coasts, rinse and repeat.

With a battery assisted recumbant that has a full enclosure, Joe Average
can hit a speed of 40 mph without breaking a sweat.

"Brent P" > wrote
> I'm sorry you don't understand basic engineering, but there is no such
> point to be made with that example. These SAE supermilage vehicles
> represent nothing as far as hidden technology. They simply weigh very
> little, minimize drag in all forms, and are run in such a manner to
> maximize fuel economy on a perscribed course that has nothing to do with
> real life transportation.

I see you got over the KKKonservative LIE that the new mileage regulations
break the laws of thermodynamics.

Why do you think the Author of that KKKonservative propagana piece felt
the need to lie?


"Brent P" > wrote
> I know you control freaks think that the only reason a honda civic
> doesn't get 5,000mpg is a lack of motivational legislation, thing is
> you're wrong. SAE supermilage competition has less to do with real life
> driving than me commuting to work on my bicycle.

Such competitions illustrate what is possible within the laws of
thermodynamics.

Now again. Why do you think the Aurthor of that KKKonsevatvie Propaganda
piece felt the need to lie?

You know. I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a perpetual
liar.

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>OK that's a UK gallon but it's still 50.4 US mpg !
>
>Diesel engines are a large part of the answer. The USA has an irrational
>fear of them though.

Diesel engines are an environmentalist hair shirt.

>Modern European diesel engine design is making even
>SPORTY diesels possible. They have exceptional torque which most drivers
>like too.

I've been hearing about the modern ones for decades now. Every time I
check one out, it's still a stinky, sooty, noisy, diesel just like any
other.

And because diesel is made from the same fraction as home heating oil,
it is more expensive than gasoline in the winter in my part of the US.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Eeyore" > wrote
> I'll make a very simple statement: The Toyota Yaris D-4D is a
> staggeringly good little car.... I have never driven another car that
> could happily tootle along at 80-90mph, nip past obstructive drivers in
> old-shape Merc CL500 coupes, and still take me 63 miles on a gallon of
> diesel.
> http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=52
>
> OK that's a UK gallon but it's still 50.4 US mpg !

Everything is smaller and shriveled in AmeriKKKa. Everything.


"Eeyore" > wrote
> Diesel engines are a large part of the answer. The USA has an irrational
> fear of them though. Modern European diesel engine design is making even
> SPORTY diesels possible. They have exceptional torque which most drivers
> like too.

What about the particulate emissions?

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

>In the UK, typically all pumps deliver diesel. Our pumps are normally
>'multi-fuel' types. You select which one you want by pressing a button or
>picking up the appropriate hose. This is simple stuff and has been do-able for
>decades. Indeed it HAS been done for decades in Europe and elsewhere.

That's never done for diesel in the US, though it is done for
different grades of gasoline. Diesel uses a different nozzle than
unleaded gasoline (the diesel one is the same as the old leaded
gasoline nozzle, IIRC), which probably prevents a few idiots from
making fatal (to their engines) mistakes, though some still manage it anyway.

But whether the hose is multi-fuel or not is of little consequence.
You need separate tanks for diesel, and many stations don't have
them.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Eeyore" > wrote
> The laws of physics certainly do tend to say that expecting a 7 litre
> V-8 (or even say a more humble 4 litre) to do 35 mpg is wishful thinking
> ! But who actually NEEDS one ?

Few people. For commuting a 2 cylinder engine is more than enough,
particualrly if it's desel. Particularly if you reduce the car's frontal
area and turn it into a tow seater from front to back.

In article >, V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> The KKKonservative claim was that such cars can't exist because they would
> require a rewrite of the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> When were those thermodynamic laws rewritten to allow the 3,145 MPG car in
> the above contest?

As I tried to explain before, but I will try again even if it is likely
hopless since you seem to be a new form of idiot who cannot even quote text
properly.

The vehicles in an SAE supermileage contest are NOT CARS in any sense that
the public thinks of cars. They are best described as motorized bicycles.
Get rid of the engine and it's pretty close to shape and form of the
bicycles used to set human powered speed records.

Look for yourself:

http://images.google.com/images?q=SAE+supermileage

They are coffin sized!

> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> Over 30 teams from the U.S., Canada, India and Bahrain participated in
>> the
>> SAE's annual mileage competition June 7-8, 2007 in Marshall, Michigan.
>> The
>> competition requires the development and construction of a single person,
>> fuel efficient vehicle. All vehicles must be powered by a small
>> four-cycle
>> engine, have a minimum of three wheels, and the driver must be fully
>> enclosed to prevent contact with the ground.


"Eeyore" > wrote
> But these are CLOWN cars.
>
> You're sending out entirely the wrong idea if you think that's the only
> future.

The claim was that 35 MPG would require a violation of thermodynamics.
The existance of those "clown cars" proves conclusively that that
KKKonservative claim was nothing more than a LIE.

I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital liar.

Now in terms of practicality, it looks like 100 mpg is attainable with a
properly designed vehicle.

I get about 70 Mpg on my motorcycle, and it's engine isn't particularly
efficient. And the coefficient of drag is much higher than a car. I could
pull twice the weight with about 1.5 times the horse power, and that brings
me to 47 Mpg. Improved airflow with a full enclosure would compensate to
some extent, bringing things somewhere around 55mpg.

A more efficient engine can be had that will improve mileage by 20% so that
gets us to about 67mpg. CITY. An electric hybred system can store the
breaking energy an increase fuel economy to about 80 MPG. Add a variable
speed transmission so that the engine speed is maintained at maximum
efficiency, and go fuel injection (this engine is carborated) and you would
get another 10 to 15 MPG. Or about 95 MPG in total.

It's not rocket science. But the AmeriKKKan automotive industry has sat on
it's ass for decades, refusing to build such a device.

And now they are on their deathbead as a result.

Good.

In article >,
Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>
>Also, if diesel fuel is so superior, how come nobody makes a
>DIESEL-electric hybrid?

They do. They put them in railroad locomotives.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Greg Carr" > wrote
> Way to go UBC!! Were number one were number one11111111111111111
> Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo!!

Canadians... Is there nothing they can't do?