I was thinking... yeah why don't we all go to hell so we can learn someting

But in the meanwhile when the variable drive is still in development which do you prefer? (of manual vs automatic)

I prefer an automatic - I've driven quite a few vehicles with manual transmission, but there's enough distractions on the road these days - one more thing to think about isn't helpful!

I'm not sure what a 'semi-automatic' transmission is! Enlighten me here, if you will.

Even an electric may need a transmission, unless we can get the torque curve to be better on the low end, and more even overall for DC electric motors.

But the engine - that's where the answer is - there's a ton of energy just waiting to be saved in that department - there's the big apple, waiting to be plucked in the efficiency department. It's easy - just a little retooling on the basic design, and we can double the power output.

On the other end is the need for so much instantaneous power. Vehicles are way too heavy, on average. Here I am, lugging along 3511 pounds of machinery in a small car, just to pick up some groceries! Hmm.. seems a bit more than what anyone really wants or needs, and all that takes a lot of instant power to accelerate - hence the big motor & battery - lightening the machine makes a lot of sense as well.

I think it's amusing how in 1914 there were numerous small cars (called cycle cars) getting 50 miles per gallon or better! Oh, how we've almost gotten to 1914 efficiency standards. The secret was their lightness and simplicity - no need for bulky machinery to get a few sacs of groceries.. I'd be happy with such a vehicle, but the price tag for machines such as the Aptera (at roughly $29,000 last as I recall) is a bit out of my price range - wish they'd offer one for something more like $14,000 or less.

I'm half tempted to just re-create a cycle-car, and use the same technology - a frame, an air-cooled engine, a simple transmission, a pulley and a long belt drive (unless front-wheel drive is better). Really, that's about all the Aptera is in it's essential form - a very sleek modern cycle-car - seems like one could just build it!

 

Semi-automatic is a gearbox which allows you to drive it in fully automatic mode (say for motorway driving), but you can shift it so you can have control over it in manual mode (say for town driving).

 

Cars are heavy because of all the safety stuff they have on them to make them safe, but if the europeans can make cars which can do 75+ mpg with ease, surely the americans can do the same

So Obama has decided to shoot/imprison anybody who manufactures and sells a car that gets under a certain arbitrary # of miles per gallon in America.

 

Land of the free.

Saffy, you got to remember that it took law changes to make cars fit seat-belts/airbags/ABS, which would you prefer a car which does 10 mpg or a car that does 30mpg?

Did it really take those law changes?

 

Which would you purchase:

 

A car with airbags for 1500 pounds more, or a car without airbags? Given a choice, I think you'd go with the former. And guess what? It didn't require you to obey a law!

For seat belts it did require law changes.

 

I think the airbag & ABS (and soon to be ESP) are for the EU.

 

I would pick the car without airbags, because £1500 is quite a lot of booze

Then that's your choice. But I'd never point a gun at you to make you pay for a car with airbags!

 

You would point a gun at me, however, because your value system (even though you admit you wouldn't follow it yourself, because you're a hypocrite) is so important to you that you think everybody in society should follow it.

I've never had to use an airbag, and I hope I never do have to use one

airbags are quite important... ask Thom Yorke

Thanks for the information on the transmission options, Dave! Interesting - I am imagining a robotic system must otherwise do the shifting, or there's a band system in the gearbox - interesting!

Yes, Ricardo, I have to agree - air bags do save lives - I just wish they would put some other gas producing method in the system (all that dust in the lungs isn't good either, but it's better than taking an impact head-on!). Thought about a pressurized canister of ordinary air - might be better.

But on the energy front, all the heat leaving the engine is really a big waste, and I took a look at Scuderi's site - they've got a working model showing the methods they've proposed that works - firing after top dead center. Somewhere I'll find the link - let's see....SAE 2009: Scuderi unveils cut-away of split cycle engine

In the meantime, still pondering the idea of lighter vehicles - certainly safety features take up some of the weight, but I think it's just standard designs that do - instead of ultra-light designs, such as honey-comb structural materials and (preferably) bio-composites, we're still using the old chassis from the past - less retooling for the automakers, but it's truly massive, and largely unnecessary.

Audi went for a steel and aluminum composite structure (properly built to avoid corrosion issues) - similar to aircraft design. I'm thinking that while the weight has a "safety" advantage in a collision (and a disadvantage for the other vehicle), it's not the only way - crumple zones, better designs for stability, and compressible-reboundable materials can bring the safety factor back to today's standards - Aptera says this is true of their vehicle, and it's a fraction of the weight of a typical auto today - essentially the moern version of the cycle-car.

Anyhow, TTYL!

 

Green Economy Links:http://www.sustainable-economy.org/

A Sustainable Economy — Oregon Environmental Council

Well....we just bought a 2009 Toyota Prius and I love it. I love that it gets 45 mpg. Oh...and it's a sleek black color.

 

Does the smug " I think I'm saving the planet look" come standard when you buy a Prius or is it a popular factory extra?.

It's good to want to do what's beneficial for the ecological well-being of all life, and consider our impact on the earth's ecological and cyclical systems. So I think feeling good about choosing a more efficient vehicle is a good thing... The mileage choice does matter - it's really the right thing to do, if you value the commons and respect the rights of all others, including the rights of beluga whales to survive in the oceans on our planet.

But while the Prius has some negative aspects (as any choice we make has), it is very efficient, and can be made even more so with solar charging. True, the batteries leave a lot to be desired, but that's a matter of time and below-standard limits on pollution which affect the environment, which can be remedied as well over time.

Maybe what needs to happen is a better approach - to be more wholistic in how we see the automobile, and our place on the planet.. I think battery-powered vehicles, coupled with generators, is the future, and it's great to feel better knowing you've made a choice to be part of the change which will improve the Earth's ecological systems; better still to seek further improvements in manufacture and materials so as to lessen the impact even more. I say this knowing full well the problems with pollution, having worked in auto manufacturing facilities.

Consider this also: By needing less petrol, the Prius also lessens our dependence on an industry that successfully controls many of the globe's governments, through the effect of money in the political arena. Elected officials are there to serve our needs as citizens, not the preferential needs of a minority of stakeholders, who gain at the expense and freedom of others. So, reducing the power of the petrol giants reduces their ability to gum up politics, and to increase our rights as citizens, including our right to a clean and healthy common environment.

 

lol Chuck, as an anarchist I have to disagree with you that governments "serve our needs as citizens". I think it's the other way around.

 

But also as a student of economics I adore efficiency. There is so much untapped energy in the world, and I'm sure in the next hundred years scientists will find all sorts of ingenious ways to capture it. Seeing a gas guzzler with only one person in it makes me cringe, but for a different reason than you - I think of it as burning money. :laugh3:

 

I can't agree with Obama's fuel efficiency regulations, of course. I think many Americans will become fed up with them after a couple of years and they'll quickly be repealed. But that's just a guess. If the economy continues to get worse people will be willing to grant even more power to politicians and continue to pass superstitious laws that will appease the Christian God and Gaia.

Turtle power! Your odds of rolling in that thing are wonderfully low.

All together now:

 

'Ninja's in a half shell!'

It's good to want to do what's beneficial for the ecological well-being of all life, and consider our impact on the earth's ecological and cyclical systems. So I think feeling good about choosing a more efficient vehicle is a good thing... The mileage choice does matter - it's really the right thing to do, if you value the commons and respect the rights of all others, including the rights of beluga whales to survive in the oceans on our planet.

But while the Prius has some negative aspects (as any choice we make has), it is very efficient, and can be made even more so with solar charging. True, the batteries leave a lot to be desired, but that's a matter of time and below-standard limits on pollution which affect the environment, which can be remedied as well over time.

Maybe what needs to happen is a better approach - to be more wholistic in how we see the automobile, and our place on the planet.. I think battery-powered vehicles, coupled with generators, is the future, and it's great to feel better knowing you've made a choice to be part of the change which will improve the Earth's ecological systems; better still to seek further improvements in manufacture and materials so as to lessen the impact even more. I say this knowing full well the problems with pollution, having worked in auto manufacturing facilities.

Consider this also: By needing less petrol, the Prius also lessens our dependence on an industry that successfully controls many of the globe's governments, through the effect of money in the political arena. Elected officials are there to serve our needs as citizens, not the preferential needs of a minority of stakeholders, who gain at the expense and freedom of others. So, reducing the power of the petrol giants reduces their ability to gum up politics, and to increase our rights as citizens, including our right to a clean and healthy common environment.

 

 

A VW Polo diesel has been proven to be more efficient than a Prius, returning somewhere around 65 or 70 MPG if I remember right, it's also not as damaging to manufacture plus looks normal.The thing is, even though people deny it the car you drive can say a lot about you and when I see someone driving a Prius I automatically think what a prick(no offense intended to anyone, just buy a normal car!!)

I'll have to take you're word on it! That's because of the high compression of the Diesel, and because of the high energy content per unit volume of Diesel fuel. If one were to make a true hybrid with a Diesel engine gen-set, it would outperform even the Polo - but for now, the Polo looks like an excellent option! What's probably damaging to the environment in the Prius is the battery type, which are clean to operate, but the making of them leaves many questions about the material choices. Lithium is much better, and will probably surpass the NiMH batteries, considering the resource base. I do like the Prius, but for other reasons - mainly because it's more battery than engine, and has instrumentation that tells you how to optimize efficiency, and can be made better with the optional solar panel on the roof. I think that the Prius isn't perfect, and certainly costs plenty, but it's a step in the right direction. Better still are cars that use mostly lithium batteries, and have a backup gen-set engine for the long haul, plus a solar panel which pops up to help charge the batteries - now that would be cool! (and super-efficient)

If it's power when you hit the pedal that's missing, well, electrics like the Tesla roadster show how you can get up to speed faster with electrics. And electrics aren't new - they've been around as long as the automobile has. Perhaps the snooty attitude of some who drive Priuses is part of the problem - but the basic concept is a good one! "Normal" - do we all have to conform to some standard to be acceptable? I'll choose free will, and go with the improvements - 100 years is a long time to wait for the auto to change, and now's the right time for it. Looking back, the same could be said of the automobile's off-putters in the 1890's - there were numerous laws banning cars from the roads, and a lot of people sneered at them, asking about the same question - "Why can't you just be normal, and get a horse and buggy!". Times change, and when a better idea comes along, it's only a matter of time before it becomes the norm.

But I'd like to add what I was thinking before all this! The automobile weight issue is a hefty one. Weighing in at 3800 pounds, that's more than anyone really wants or needs in an auto - looking at bio-mimicry, we find the diving peregrine falcon, the eagle, and the kingfisher all better at collisions than any auto on the market. And no dents when they hit their targets!:laugh3: So, to mimic the natural world seems a good start, as nature's already way ahead of us on designs.. And if you want performance, the lighter the car gets, the faster it can accelerate or brake. In fact, it was the custom at one time to strip down autos to the bare engine, seat, and frame for racing purposes, since the added mass slowed the car's take-off on the dirt tracks during early racing days. Not that we should all do that!:lol: But if you think about it - all that horsepower is being bogged down accelerating two tons of machine, when it could be getting you up to speed in no time flat. Plus, stopping! Two tons, bringing that much mass to a halt takes quite a feat! Look at the racing circuit cars at dusk, and the brake discs glow red hot! Methinks we can do better.:smug:

But I'd like to add what I was thinking before all this! The automobile weight issue is a hefty one. Weighing in at 3800 pounds, that's more than anyone really wants or needs in an auto - looking at bio-mimicry, we find the diving peregrine falcon, the eagle, and the kingfisher all better at collisions than any auto on the market. And no dents when they hit their targets!:laugh3: So, to mimic the natural world seems a good start, as nature's already way ahead of us on designs.. And if you want performance, the lighter the car gets, the faster it can accelerate or brake. In fact, it was the custom at one time to strip down autos to the bare engine, seat, and frame for racing purposes, since the added mass slowed the car's take-off on the dirt tracks during early racing days. Not that we should all do that!:lol: But if you think about it - all that horsepower is being bogged down accelerating two tons of machine, when it could be getting you up to speed in no time flat. Plus, stopping! Two tons, bringing that much mass to a halt takes quite a feat! Look at the racing circuit cars at dusk, and the brake discs glow red hot! Methinks we can do better.:smug:

 

Cars have gotten heavier due to all the various safety systems they have on board. If you want a light car you either have to be creative in packaging or cut down on passive safety leaning towards active safety (ala original mini)

Cars have gotten heavier because: today they're trucks. Basically, the SUV is nothing more than a truck frame with a heavy body set onto it; so the massive frame, heavy engine and drive train, plus the body adds up to several tons.

If you want a safer car, it's a matter of better designs for impacts - hence the reference to bio-mimicry of the various birds which can hit objects/water at incredible speeds with no harm done to themselves.. But that's a thought which hadn't occurred to me - safety systems which actively prevent collisions! It's been tried in the past, but the feeling was that it made a "crutch" for the driver to be less attentive - I'll have to take a look at how mini does it! (or did it?)..

Auto makers resist change. It's easier ( and for them far more profitable) to keep modifying existing structures, than to retool and make a whole new design. In fact, the most profit had been made by the SUV lines (essentially trucks), as they could be marked up substantially, and customers paid whatever the automakers asked for! That was before the economy sagged, and before gas shot up in price.

So, the weight issue is linked to resistance to change - the pre-existing models were trucks, and the manufacturing lines could keep making many of the same parts +/- a few changes - just add a body over it with the seats and doors, and there it was - easy for them, and very profitable. Nothing new about that either - even the Ford Prefect (also a character in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe) retained much of the earlier design features, such as an engine which kept being revamped from it's inception in the late 1920's. Tweak a grill here, a body panel there, add a feature, etc. - I've seen the books on the plans into the future, and it's always a gradual transition that the auto makers like.

The benefits, aside from low costs of production, are the reliability of a given design. But that could all change, with computer design and simulation - problems can be seen ahead of production.

What I think is that we are on the nascent cusp of real change in automotive design. As fuel prices will surely soar, the future actually looks bright for newer and better ways of building automobiles. Safety in collisions is still an issue, and one could say the higher vehicle profile is part of the competitive nature of humans - always the height issues, so it was with carriages, and so it became with the auto. But to satisfy the ecological concerns, it's necessary to consider ways to miniminze the harm done to get the goods.

If one does the vehicle calculations - 15,000 miles per year, for 12.5 years, that works out to about 188,000 miles per auto (or 303,000 Kilometers). Given a mileage rating of 20 miles per gallon, or 8.5 Kilometers per Liter, that translates into roughly 9,400 Gallons, or 35,600 Liters of fuel used per vehicle lifetime. Anotherwords, 70,000 pound of fuel per average U.S. automobile. 35 Tons worth. That's just for one - now multiply that by some odd 200 million or so vehicles on the road, and you can see just the tip of the iceberg in terms of resources and energy! Costly as it is amazing, the 9,400 gallons would run up a tag of around around $28,200 US dollars, roughly equal to the purchase price of a new large automobile!! That's at $3.00/gallon gasoline - which in 12.5 more years will be yesterday's dream.

So, the point I'm trying to make is that this is money going out the window, and affecting the Earth's natural systems in some very profound ways. Add some lithium batteries, get the engine up to snuff for efficiency, and drop the weight. Figure out how nature works miracles with impacts, and apply that knowledge gained. Braking as well - add some air brakes to production cars. Make softer, grippier tires, and perhaps add an emergency traction plate to be lowered in case of black ice or hydroplaning. Redesign for smoother aerodynamics, better braking systems, and ways to keep the inside cool without the energy losses.

But for a priority list, first:

- make real hybrids. Electric motor systems is the way to go.

- use lithium batteries, and carbon nanotube supercapacitors. Power without the damage

- engine as a device to power a generator primarily, as a long-distance power system

- wide solar panels that pop up to gain more sun (and keep the car cool in the lot)

- re-engineer the car to take the impacts, much as animals in the wild do.

- streamline, regen-braking, and better ways with cooling.

- look back and look ahead for answers - sometimes we've already tried it, and it's been passed by in an era of cheap fuel and no concern for the environment. Sometimes it needs to be dreamed first to be made possible. Imagination is sometimes more powerful than current knowledge.

 

 

Basically, to allow the combustion gasses to expand fully, and give the piston all the power it can take makes sense. I've wondered if perhaps there's more than one approach to solve this problem - maybe a fully hydraulic engine, with the piston and push rod driving a hydraulic cylinder pump, and being driven by hydraulics on the compression stroke - then the compression could be fully controlled.. Perhaps too much friction involved with the fluid dynamics and seals, but it's a neat idea!

Lighten up the auto quite a bit - there's ample space for change in that department as well. If the energy used to make an auto is about equal to the fuel it takes to drive one in it's lifespan, then we need to consider the overall vehicle mass and energy embodied in the components, as well as fuel consumption.