ot: 300mph electric vehicle

I really don't know why this is being built. Many electrics are able to
go fast. Why 52 batteries? Why not a large bank of capicitors? Wouldn't
a direct-drive motor be more efficient?

The real story with electrics is distance traveled/charge, not how fast
you can go in one. Sounds like a bunch of guys trying to get press.

Eric

Ken said:

okay it's got 52 batteries and a variable speed transmission. But it still
does 300 mph without an engine!!
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2230615196

That's pretty impressive.

Last week, in Monterey, I rode the acclaimed 17 Mile Drive a few
times. There's a good deal of construction going on there (it's
always encouraging to know that the millionaires are still doing well
under W, thankyouverymuch), so there are huge construction-type
18-wheelers careening up and down that road all too frequently.

On this particular (birthday) ride--at a stop near the top of a long
descent--I asked the driver of one if I could (oh, so foolishly) duck
in behind his truck and motorpace down the serpentine descent. Out
from his window came a resounding thumbs up! Cool.

Roughly 40+ mph average (peak: 50mph) down the hill . . .

It's nice to have the temerity to believe that your brand new
Kool-stops will out-brake an 18-wheeler loaded with gravel....

Trained professionals. Closed course. Don't try this at home.

Neil Brooks said:

Ken said:

okay it's got 52 batteries and a variable speed transmission. But it
still does 300 mph without an engine!!
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2230615196

That's pretty impressive.

Last week, in Monterey, I rode the acclaimed 17 Mile Drive a few
times. There's a good deal of construction going on there (it's
always encouraging to know that the millionaires are still doing well
under W, thankyouverymuch)

Name-dropper. (I was up there during some Dem 'strations, and believe it or
not they were plowing then, too! 🙂 )

Quoted message said:

, so there are huge construction-type
18-wheelers careening up and down that road all too frequently.

On this particular (birthday) ride--at a stop near the top of a long
descent--I asked the driver of one if I could (oh, so foolishly) duck
in behind his truck and motorpace down the serpentine descent. Out
from his window came a resounding thumbs up! Cool.

Roughly 40+ mph average (peak: 50mph) down the hill . . .

It's nice to have the temerity to believe that your brand new
Kool-stops will out-brake an 18-wheeler loaded with gravel....

Trained professionals. Closed course. Don't try this at home.

Scofflaw. (But happy belated birthday anyway.)

Never got an e-mail about TODAY's ride (harrumph), BS

PS: Installed the DA BB last night. Wonder what will fall off out there
later?!?

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really don't know why this is being built. Many electrics are able to
go fast. Why 52 batteries? Why not a large bank of capicitors? Wouldn't
a direct-drive motor be more efficient?

The real story with electrics is distance traveled/charge, not how fast
you can go in one. Sounds like a bunch of guys trying to get press.

Eric

You are right about the charge / travel distance thing. But it is a common
mis-conception that electrics are slow.

Ken

Ken said:

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really don't know why this is being built. Many electrics are able to
go fast. Why 52 batteries? Why not a large bank of capicitors? Wouldn't
a direct-drive motor be more efficient?

The real story with electrics is distance traveled/charge, not how fast
you can go in one. Sounds like a bunch of guys trying to get press.

Eric

You are right about the charge / travel distance thing. But it is a common
mis-conception that electrics are slow.

Ken

Now you have my interest even though this is totally off topic for the
group. One manufacturer (Chevy?) made an electric that would do 0 to 60
in about 5 seconds. Distance traveled per charge is way over rated since
most smog and wasted gas comes from city commuters sitting on a freeway
parking lot with their engines running. An electric that would dump the
stopping power back into the batteries would get a very long range since
wind resistance is what sucks power at 55+ MPH. Starting up to 5 MPH and
then stopping while dumping that energy back into the batteries would
use almost nothing. Start there and let someone have a hybrid for actual
road trips on the highway.

It only takes about 10-15 HP to maintain a cruising speed of 65 MPH
depending on the aerodynamics. Any excess could be provided by a battery
pack/booster for passing or whatever. As far as normal gas engines are
concerned, damn near anything can be made to get 35 MPG at 65 MPH. I
rebuilt the 196 Cubic inch FLATHEAD 6 on a 1961 Rambler aerodynamic
brick, then put in an over drive transmission with a freeway geared rear
end and wound up with 35 MPG at 65 MPH and that was with a few side
trips, including mountains.

The commercials you see on television with some stupid car company
bragging about 35 MPG on the highway make me laugh/nauseous.
Most car engines can put out the needed 10-15 HP at about 1200 to 1500
RPM but I have seen none geared that way. The consumer still wants go
power in top gear and probably won't be convinced until gas tops $5.00 a
gallon, if even then.

Hybrids could be a good thing but what is wrong with placing solar
panels on top of the car and on the hood and rear deck? Just park in the
sun and be topped up at the end of the day.

Bill Baka

"bbaka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now you have my interest even though this is totally off topic for the
group. One manufacturer (Chevy?) made an electric that would do 0 to 60
in about 5 seconds. Distance traveled per charge is way over rated since
most smog and wasted gas comes from city commuters sitting on a freeway
parking lot with their engines running. An electric that would dump the
stopping power back into the batteries would get a very long range since
wind resistance is what sucks power at 55+ MPH. Starting up to 5 MPH and
then stopping while dumping that energy back into the batteries would
use almost nothing. Start there and let someone have a hybrid for actual
road trips on the highway.

It only takes about 10-15 HP to maintain a cruising speed of 65 MPH
depending on the aerodynamics. Any excess could be provided by a battery
pack/booster for passing or whatever. As far as normal gas engines are
concerned, damn near anything can be made to get 35 MPG at 65 MPH. I
rebuilt the 196 Cubic inch FLATHEAD 6 on a 1961 Rambler aerodynamic
brick, then put in an over drive transmission with a freeway geared rear
end and wound up with 35 MPG at 65 MPH and that was with a few side
trips, including mountains.

The commercials you see on television with some stupid car company
bragging about 35 MPG on the highway make me laugh/nauseous.
Most car engines can put out the needed 10-15 HP at about 1200 to 1500
RPM but I have seen none geared that way. The consumer still wants go
power in top gear and probably won't be convinced until gas tops $5.00 a
gallon, if even then.

Hybrids could be a good thing but what is wrong with placing solar
panels on top of the car and on the hood and rear deck? Just park in the
sun and be topped up at the end of the day.

Bill Baka

I remember that Chevy, I don't recall what it was called though. We all know
that the car companies and the oil companies are too closely tied. That is
part of the reason hybrids are just starting to catch on. But still only
amount for about 1% of all new car sales. I like the idea of all electric
vehicles. How about a retractable solar panel deal, you know you put it out
when you get to work, then it charges your batteries while you are there,
then you retract it for the drive home?? Your idea about the braking energy
is being employed in the current generation of hybrids, I think it is called
re-generative braking.

Ken

Ken said:

"bbaka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now you have my interest even though this is totally off topic for the
group. One manufacturer (Chevy?) made an electric that would do 0 to 60
in about 5 seconds. Distance traveled per charge is way over rated since
most smog and wasted gas comes from city commuters sitting on a freeway
parking lot with their engines running. An electric that would dump the
stopping power back into the batteries would get a very long range since
wind resistance is what sucks power at 55+ MPH. Starting up to 5 MPH and
then stopping while dumping that energy back into the batteries would
use almost nothing. Start there and let someone have a hybrid for actual
road trips on the highway.

It only takes about 10-15 HP to maintain a cruising speed of 65 MPH
depending on the aerodynamics. Any excess could be provided by a battery
pack/booster for passing or whatever. As far as normal gas engines are
concerned, damn near anything can be made to get 35 MPG at 65 MPH. I
rebuilt the 196 Cubic inch FLATHEAD 6 on a 1961 Rambler aerodynamic
brick, then put in an over drive transmission with a freeway geared rear
end and wound up with 35 MPG at 65 MPH and that was with a few side
trips, including mountains.

The commercials you see on television with some stupid car company
bragging about 35 MPG on the highway make me laugh/nauseous.
Most car engines can put out the needed 10-15 HP at about 1200 to 1500
RPM but I have seen none geared that way. The consumer still wants go
power in top gear and probably won't be convinced until gas tops $5.00 a
gallon, if even then.

Hybrids could be a good thing but what is wrong with placing solar
panels on top of the car and on the hood and rear deck? Just park in the
sun and be topped up at the end of the day.

Bill Baka

I remember that Chevy, I don't recall what it was called though. We all know
that the car companies and the oil companies are too closely tied. That is
part of the reason hybrids are just starting to catch on. But still only
amount for about 1% of all new car sales. I like the idea of all electric
vehicles. How about a retractable solar panel deal, you know you put it out
when you get to work, then it charges your batteries while you are there,
then you retract it for the drive home?? Your idea about the braking energy
is being employed in the current generation of hybrids, I think it is called
re-generative braking.

Ken

Yes,
All the pieces are there but there need to be two kinds of cars. One
totally electric for the short hauls around town and commutes under
about 30 miles one way, and another for longer trips. This makes
everyone a 2 car family but so what? I would gladly own a totally
electric car for those trips for groceries or Wal-mart, or a hardware
store where I have to carry something. The gas/Hydrogen car could just
be put on a trickle charger to keep the battery charged up for when I
needed to go somewhere over 30 miles, like maybe a business trip or a
vacation to Canada or something else where electric is not practical.
The electric car has been achievable for 40++ years, but people don't
want compromise, they just want one car that will do it all and that is
what is hanging up the electric car business. Why is Los Angeles so
damned smoggy? Cars parked on the freeway for hours just to get 10 or 20
miles. Electrics would solve that as soon as they were implemented.
Sooner or later people are going to have to deal with reality, they may
not like it, but it is coming, and Bush opening up Alaskan refuge area
just shows where his big interests are. There is nothing wrong with the
city car concept except acceptance, they may not look cool, but they
will get the job done.
Bill Baka

Ken said:

we know
that the car companies and the oil companies are too closely tied.

That is

Quoted message said:

part of the reason hybrids are just starting to catch on. But still

only

Quoted message said:

amount for about 1% of all new car sales.

Disclaimer first- my comment is descriptive and not normative.

I don't think that reason tha hybrids are not catching on has anything
to do with ties between big auto makers and big oil. It is really
simple economics as seen from the point of view of the individual.

First, for many folks the subcompact sized compacts just don't work.
They don't have the carry capacity that many families and businesses
need. So, the market that finds them attractive is only a small slice
of the total market.

And the larger hybrids are really quite expensie as compared to the
vehicles they are designed to replace. If a hybrid costs $5000 more
than its comparabel non hybrid competion it will take most folks
several years to "save" that amount on fuel to make the purchace make
economic sense. Even with current high gas prices I imagien that many
folks still spend less than $2000 per year per vehicle on fuel. From a
marginal cost point of view most folks are spending less than $700 more
than they were spending two years ago and thus the short term decision
to junk the guzzler for the hybrid is difficult to make (no matter what
the better long term economic and environmental solution may be)

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ken said:

we know
that the car companies and the oil companies are too closely tied.

That is

Quoted message said:

part of the reason hybrids are just starting to catch on. But still

only

Quoted message said:

amount for about 1% of all new car sales.

Disclaimer first- my comment is descriptive and not normative.

I don't think that reason tha hybrids are not catching on has anything
to do with ties between big auto makers and big oil. It is really
simple economics as seen from the point of view of the individual.

First, for many folks the subcompact sized compacts just don't work.
They don't have the carry capacity that many families and businesses
need. So, the market that finds them attractive is only a small slice
of the total market.

And the larger hybrids are really quite expensie as compared to the
vehicles they are designed to replace. If a hybrid costs $5000 more
than its comparabel non hybrid competion it will take most folks
several years to "save" that amount on fuel to make the purchace make
economic sense. Even with current high gas prices I imagien that many
folks still spend less than $2000 per year per vehicle on fuel. From a
marginal cost point of view most folks are spending less than $700 more
than they were spending two years ago and thus the short term decision
to junk the guzzler for the hybrid is difficult to make (no matter what
the better long term economic and environmental solution may be)

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the oil
business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that use
fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not drilling in
ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they put the
money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten years
those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are hybrids
that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the lifespan of a
vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

Ken said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ken said:

we know
that the car companies and the oil companies are too closely

tied.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is

Quoted message said:

part of the reason hybrids are just starting to catch on. But

still

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

only

Quoted message said:

amount for about 1% of all new car sales.

Disclaimer first- my comment is descriptive and not normative.

I don't think that reason tha hybrids are not catching on has

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to do with ties between big auto makers and big oil. It is really
simple economics as seen from the point of view of the individual.

First, for many folks the subcompact sized compacts just don't

work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They don't have the carry capacity that many families and

businesses

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

need. So, the market that finds them attractive is only a small

slice

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the total market.

And the larger hybrids are really quite expensie as compared to the
vehicles they are designed to replace. If a hybrid costs $5000 more
than its comparabel non hybrid competion it will take most folks
several years to "save" that amount on fuel to make the purchace

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

economic sense. Even with current high gas prices I imagien that

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

folks still spend less than $2000 per year per vehicle on fuel.

From a

Quoted message said:

marginal cost point of view most folks are spending less than $700

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than they were spending two years ago and thus the short term

decision

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to junk the guzzler for the hybrid is difficult to make (no matter

what

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the better long term economic and environmental solution may be)

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the oil
business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that

use

Quoted message said:

fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not

drilling in

Quoted message said:

ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they

put the

Quoted message said:

money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten

years

Quoted message said:

those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are

hybrids

Quoted message said:

that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the lifespan

of a

Quoted message said:

vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

I'm not arguing against the idea of the need for a longer term policy
and behaviors that include more conservation.
But how is it that you figure that the car makers "need" the oil
companies. In the short run it seems to me that the oil companies
"need" the car companies to maintain high demand for fossil fuel.
Actually given the incredible mismanagment at GM, Ford, And Chrysler
over the past 30 years I'd argue that (at least those) auto companies
don't have a clue of what's good for them and for their long term
survival. I don't know how others think about it but for me at age 60
it is hard to imagine three gigantic companies squaundering their
legacies and rolling down the path ruin during my adult life..

A while ago there was a saying to the effect "as GM goes so goes the
country." Very few think of GM as the core of the US economy today.

Ken said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

....

Quoted message said:

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the oil
business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that use
fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not drilling in
ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they put the
money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten years
those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are hybrids
that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the lifespan of a
vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

That's why I think that we should increase the federal tax on gasoline
so that the price rises to $6 a gallon. Use the tax money to fund the
wars that provide that gas (rather than have everyone else subsidize
the wars). Then hybrid cars and other alternatives will have a real
economic incentive. We simply don't have a single politician with the
guts to start talking about it.

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ken said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

...

Quoted message said:

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the oil
business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that use
fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not drilling in
ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they put

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten years
those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are hybrids
that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the lifespan of

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

That's why I think that we should increase the federal tax on gasoline
so that the price rises to $6 a gallon. Use the tax money to fund the
wars that provide that gas (rather than have everyone else subsidize
the wars). Then hybrid cars and other alternatives will have a real
economic incentive. We simply don't have a single politician with the
guts to start talking about it.

Ah I agree with you 1000% on that one. The tax thing that is, from what I
have read that is how many projects in Europe are paid for! And they have a
strong bicycle culture over there.

Ken

dgk said:

Ken said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

...

Quoted message said:

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the

oil

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not

drilling in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they

put the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten

years

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are

hybrids

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the

lifespan of a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

That's why I think that we should increase the federal tax on

gasoline

Quoted message said:

so that the price rises to $6 a gallon. Use the tax money to fund the
wars that provide that gas (rather than have everyone else subsidize
the wars). Then hybrid cars and other alternatives will have a real
economic incentive. We simply don't have a single politician with the
guts to start talking about it.

Actually there have been a number of politicians who have suggested
exactly that. Problem is they either don't really believe it and work
for it or they don't get reelected.

But you are certainly correct that a high tax would change behavior.
The criticism of such a tax is that it is essentially regressive in
that it would be the same rate accross all income lines and thus hit
the poorer folks the hardest in terms of the % of their income. And
they are the ones who have the hardest time buying a newer, more
efficient vehicle as well. This isn't so important in areas like New
York City with an effective mass transit alternative to the auto. But
try it out here in the south west where folks have to drive 20 miles to
work and there are no mass transit alternatives. $6 a gallon on $7 an
hour is pretty tough.

dgk said:

Ken said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

....

Quoted message said:

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the oil
business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that use
fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not drilling in
ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they put the
money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten years
those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are hybrids
that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the lifespan of a
vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

That's why I think that we should increase the federal tax on gasoline
so that the price rises to $6 a gallon. Use the tax money to fund the
wars that provide that gas (rather than have everyone else subsidize
the wars). Then hybrid cars and other alternatives will have a real
economic incentive. We simply don't have a single politician with the
guts to start talking about it.

This really does get me back to the 2 car per family argument. One
totally electric for short hauls or commutes where the speed is rarely
over 25 MPH and it is start stop (going to work in the city). The other
a hybrid of some sort that can run at highway speeds and use Hydrogen or
some other more traditional fuel but can go for hundreds of miles if
need be. Just because you work 10 miles from home is no excuse to use a
gas guzzler and whine about "I don't have another car to use.". An
electric could be made small enough to be a single person commuter and
barely take up any parking space. That solution is logical but people
will probably fight it and hang up development until we are out of oil
and it hits $10.00/gallon. BTW, there were electric cars way back around
1920 or so, making this not a very new concept. I personally would use a
small one person electric for grocery runs and such where I had to carry
more than what a bike would, as long as it had some kind of trunk space.
It is possible but all the politicians are wimps and just want to get
re-elected.
I hate politics/politicians.
Bill Baka

gds said:

dgk said:

Ken said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

...

Quoted message said:

Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the

oil

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.

There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines that

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not

drilling in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If they

put the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In ten

years

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

those techs will be viable.

Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are

hybrids

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the

lifespan of a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.

Ken

That's why I think that we should increase the federal tax on

gasoline

Quoted message said:

so that the price rises to $6 a gallon. Use the tax money to fund the
wars that provide that gas (rather than have everyone else subsidize
the wars). Then hybrid cars and other alternatives will have a real
economic incentive. We simply don't have a single politician with the
guts to start talking about it.

Actually there have been a number of politicians who have suggested
exactly that. Problem is they either don't really believe it and work
for it or they don't get reelected.

But you are certainly correct that a high tax would change behavior.
The criticism of such a tax is that it is essentially regressive in
that it would be the same rate accross all income lines and thus hit
the poorer folks the hardest in terms of the % of their income. And
they are the ones who have the hardest time buying a newer, more
efficient vehicle as well. This isn't so important in areas like New
York City with an effective mass transit alternative to the auto. But
try it out here in the south west where folks have to drive 20 miles to
work and there are no mass transit alternatives. $6 a gallon on $7 an
hour is pretty tough.

That is a good point. However it's hard to believe that there is no
carpooling possible. Plus, a certain amount of the funding made
available will go for public transportation. Anywhere where people
have to go 20 miles for work is certainly a candidate for a good bus
route.

dgk said:

gds said:

dgk said:

On Mon, 9 May 2005 18:02:10 -0400, "Ken"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
...
>
>Well the auto companies do not want to upset thier friends in the

oil

Quoted message said:

>business. Which is why they continue to produce the gas guzzlers.
>
>There are plenty of alternatives to internal combustion engines

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use

Quoted message said:

>fossil fuels. More money needs to be spent on these alts. not

drilling in

Quoted message said:

>ANWAR which hold only enough oil for about ten years of use. If

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

put the

Quoted message said:

>money they will use to drill there into R&D of other techs. In

ten

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years

Quoted message said:

>those techs will be viable.
>
>Sub compacts won't work for every one I know this, but there are

hybrids

Quoted message said:

>that are bigger, and several years is not a long time in the

lifespan of a

Quoted message said:

>vehicle. Most people finance vehicles for 5+ years.
>
>Ken

That's why I think that we should increase the federal tax on

gasoline

Quoted message said:

so that the price rises to $6 a gallon. Use the tax money to fund

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wars that provide that gas (rather than have everyone else

subsidize

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the wars). Then hybrid cars and other alternatives will have a

real

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

economic incentive. We simply don't have a single politician with

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

guts to start talking about it.

Actually there have been a number of politicians who have suggested
exactly that. Problem is they either don't really believe it and

work

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for it or they don't get reelected.

But you are certainly correct that a high tax would change behavior.
The criticism of such a tax is that it is essentially regressive in
that it would be the same rate accross all income lines and thus hit
the poorer folks the hardest in terms of the % of their income. And
they are the ones who have the hardest time buying a newer, more
efficient vehicle as well. This isn't so important in areas like New
York City with an effective mass transit alternative to the auto.

But

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

try it out here in the south west where folks have to drive 20 miles

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

work and there are no mass transit alternatives. $6 a gallon on $7

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hour is pretty tough.

That is a good point. However it's hard to believe that there is no
carpooling possible. Plus, a certain amount of the funding made
available will go for public transportation. Anywhere where people
have to go 20 miles for work is certainly a candidate for a good bus
route.

Lots of things are possible and in time will come. My point was simply
that the often offered solution of just taxing fuel at higher rates has
some draw backs as well as positive effects. Where it has worked- like
Europe- has cities that are much different in terms of density and
neighborhood structure than we have in much of the US. As usual simple
solutions are hard to come by to fix very complicated problems.

And I would like to stress that solutions that appear viable to middle
class folks often present real burdens to folks at the bottom of the
economic ladder. When you are 45 yo have $0 savings, barely make the
rent and are behind on the electric bill and are working for $7 /hour,
solutions like buying a new efficient electric vehicle just don't
apply.

And mass transit in some situations is also problematic. Think of
large, decentralized, low density cities like we have out west. Rail
doesn't work and you would need ten times the current number of buses
to have a inclusive route structure. Mass transit works well in high
density areas with specific residential and commercial area. In the
west, with little planning & zoning, cities are much more distributed
and that makes rational, efficient mass transit more problematic.
Perhaps not impossible but much more difficult.

bbaka said:

The other
a hybrid of some sort that can run at highway speeds and use Hydrogen

Can I suggest we call it the Hindenberg.

gds said:

bbaka said:

The other
a hybrid of some sort that can run at highway speeds and use Hydrogen

Can I suggest we call it the Hindenberg.

It isn't my idea. All the politicians who think they have a chance at
getting re-elected are making noises about it. Hydrogen is the only fuel
that produces only water when burned. The generic formula for a
hydrocarbon is something like C6H12O6 +/- a few atoms here and there.
What results is that the H12O6 is just 6 water molecules hanging onto
some Carbon and the Carbon burns as CO2 = greenhouse gas. Same goes for
Propane, compressed natural gas, Methane, or anything but Hydrogen. The
problem is that we have coal burning plants making electricity to make
the Hydrogen, so it is a null effect, except that the power plant may
have a million dollars worth of stuff to clean the exhaust of other
pollutants. We will have to go to solar, wind, more hydro (from where?),
or the dreaded Nuclear. It is just a scientific fact of life we have to
live with.
Bill Baka

max said:

In article <[email hidden]>, bbaka <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hydrogen is the only fuel
that produces only water when burned.

While that's basically true, hydrogen combustion does in fact produce
nitrogen oxides. This comes about from the fact that H2 engines use air
for combustion vs. pure O2. The use of air means there will be N2
available to react in the elevated temp/press of the combustion
chamber, thus NOx's are sometimes formed. It's not a "direct" or
intended combustion byproduct but it happens.

NOx production is hardly a show stopper (hydrocarbon engines suffer the
same problem), but it is one of those things that have to be dealt when
designing H2 combustion systems.

link to goggle: <http://tinyurl.com/dhouk>
first hit:<http://tinyurl.com/cg3gp> (1.1 meg pdf).

Note particularly figure 3.8. The axis "phi" refers "leaness/richness"
relative fuel-air stoichiometric ratio. If the value for phi is less
than one, the mixture has excess air and therefore is lean. If the
value for phi is greater than one, the mixture has excess fuel and
therefore rich). NOx peaks in hydrocarbon and H2 engines at phi of
about .8~.9. Note also that total NOx emissions is about the same for
both hydrocarbon and H2 engines operating in their respective peak
phi/NOx regions.

Surprising but true!

..max

One of the factors creating NOx is compression ratio and temperature of
combustion which I think is why newer cars are in the range of 8.5-9.0.
I don't think a turbine engine produces NOx, but is impractical for a car.
Bill Baka