NY Times- GM/Chrysler dual-mode full hybrid
#11
12-29-2006, 10:05 AM
Re: NY Times- GM/Chrysler dual-mode full hybrid
___Another tact. A vehicle that weighs twice as much will always use more then twice as much energy to accelerate up to a given speed. All other efficiency terms being equivalent of course. The counterpoint to this is once up to speed, that larger vehicle does not necessarily consume twice the energy to maintain a given speed as the smaller one.
I do however agree that having larger vehicles for a lot of people is unnecessary, however, I don't believe that intentionally letting those vehicles remain as inefficient as they are to be a deterrent to buying them is a good idea, either. A lot of people truly do need a vehicle with more cargo or passenger carrying capacity. An efficient pickup truck with variable cylinder + hybrid drivetrain would be a great idea. In the case of a truck, a more powerful engine with all cylinders would be needed in case of towing, but when empty, it could run in half cylinders. The hybrid drivetrain could still help with acceleration/braking in any case.
I don't disagree with large vehicles, unless they are an inefficient design for the sake of "style" such as the Hummers, which are half as efficient as trucks that are just as useful.
#12
01-16-2007, 02:55 PM
Re: NY Times- GM/Chrysler dual-mode full hybrid
I see no reason to keep hybrid technology only for small cars like my Prius, either. My take on the the simple beauty of the hybrid solution: being the only power plant, the ICE really only needs to provide the average power required by the vehicle, and the average requirement is _way_ less than the max.
The electric system provides the difference between max load and average, allowing a the designer smaller and more efficient ICE, and as a bonus, regenerative braking, stealth mode for stop & go, and (this next one really matters for Texas where I live) more efficient electric-powered air conditioners.
xcel: I'm with you in that we can't tell people what to drive, but it's worth it for people to be educated about the costs of their choices, and to have accurate information about the alternatives, something I have rarely seen with hybrid articles in the media. If my good friend who recently bought a non-hybrid Ford Escape had known more about my Prius (which has comparable acceleration and more room!), he might have bought it and saved a ton of gas; he never tows anything, so the Prius was a viable option.
Shining Arcanine: I'm right with you, except for the oft-referred-to "coming ice age" misquote of the 1974 National Science Board, which was actually:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
The Washington Post left off the final sentence about human interference, so every story that quoted _them_ left it off, leading to decades of misunderstanding that continue today. Am I the only one reminded of early "studies" of hybrids in the media that used flat-out incorrect numbers and misleading comparisons, which continue to be quoted today?
The electric system provides the difference between max load and average, allowing a the designer smaller and more efficient ICE, and as a bonus, regenerative braking, stealth mode for stop & go, and (this next one really matters for Texas where I live) more efficient electric-powered air conditioners.
xcel: I'm with you in that we can't tell people what to drive, but it's worth it for people to be educated about the costs of their choices, and to have accurate information about the alternatives, something I have rarely seen with hybrid articles in the media. If my good friend who recently bought a non-hybrid Ford Escape had known more about my Prius (which has comparable acceleration and more room!), he might have bought it and saved a ton of gas; he never tows anything, so the Prius was a viable option.
Shining Arcanine: I'm right with you, except for the oft-referred-to "coming ice age" misquote of the 1974 National Science Board, which was actually:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
The Washington Post left off the final sentence about human interference, so every story that quoted _them_ left it off, leading to decades of misunderstanding that continue today. Am I the only one reminded of early "studies" of hybrids in the media that used flat-out incorrect numbers and misleading comparisons, which continue to be quoted today?
#13
01-26-2007, 01:32 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Finger Lakes Region NY
Posts: 264
Re: NY Times- GM/Chrysler dual-mode full hybrid
A pig is still a pig, even it gets 10 percent better fuel economy.
The beauty of a Prius II is that it was designed with fuel efficiency in mind, from top to bottom, including the lowest drag coefficient of any car currently being sold. The car is a dazzling tour-de-force of engineering, with fuel economy and low emissions being the prime goals. The car is an inspirational display of corporate courage and determination.
Putting a hybrid system in an overweight, bloated, oversized SUV defies logic in the sense that you are at best doing only a half-hearted attempt. You may only be twice the mass, but at what drag coefficient? And the hybrid systems being proposed are in themselves half-measures.
GM is still letting the bean-counters run the show. Putting anemic hybrid systems in vehicles that should be outlawed or at least heavily taxed for their negative effects on the environment and severe safety problems, especially to other motorists, is an exercise in corporate cowardice.
GM, if you insist on maximizing your profits through the continued immoral sales of SUV's, at least show the world what you are capable of, and produce an all-out environmentally-friendly vehicle that will out-do the Prius!
Harry
#14
01-26-2007, 08:40 PM
Re: NY Times- GM/Chrysler dual-mode full hybrid
My sentiments exactly, MGBGT. I'll be in that small minority with you.
A pig is still a pig, even it gets 10 percent better fuel economy.
The beauty of a Prius II is that it was designed with fuel efficiency in mind, from top to bottom, including the lowest drag coefficient of any car currently being sold. The car is a dazzling tour-de-force of engineering, with fuel economy and low emissions being the prime goals. The car is an inspirational display of corporate courage and determination.
Putting a hybrid system in an overweight, bloated, oversized SUV defies logic in the sense that you are at best doing only a half-hearted attempt. You may only be twice the mass, but at what drag coefficient? And the hybrid systems being proposed are in themselves half-measures.
GM is still letting the bean-counters run the show. Putting anemic hybrid systems in vehicles that should be outlawed or at least heavily taxed for their negative effects on the environment and severe safety problems, especially to other motorists, is an exercise in corporate cowardice.
GM, if you insist on maximizing your profits through the continued immoral sales of SUV's, at least show the world what you are capable of, and produce an all-out environmentally-friendly vehicle that will out-do the Prius!
Harry
A pig is still a pig, even it gets 10 percent better fuel economy.
The beauty of a Prius II is that it was designed with fuel efficiency in mind, from top to bottom, including the lowest drag coefficient of any car currently being sold. The car is a dazzling tour-de-force of engineering, with fuel economy and low emissions being the prime goals. The car is an inspirational display of corporate courage and determination.
Putting a hybrid system in an overweight, bloated, oversized SUV defies logic in the sense that you are at best doing only a half-hearted attempt. You may only be twice the mass, but at what drag coefficient? And the hybrid systems being proposed are in themselves half-measures.
GM is still letting the bean-counters run the show. Putting anemic hybrid systems in vehicles that should be outlawed or at least heavily taxed for their negative effects on the environment and severe safety problems, especially to other motorists, is an exercise in corporate cowardice.
GM, if you insist on maximizing your profits through the continued immoral sales of SUV's, at least show the world what you are capable of, and produce an all-out environmentally-friendly vehicle that will out-do the Prius!
Harry
#15
01-26-2007, 08:42 PM
Re: NY Times- GM/Chrysler dual-mode full hybrid
A few hundred years ago, British scientists were warning that if actions were not taken, the white race would cease to exist as a result of the colored people. A few decades, scientists were warning that in the future we would experience global freezing. Now some scientists are saying that we are causing the planet's temperatures to rise, while others say otherwise and are being censored. Posterity will not remember those individuals that identified the charlatans for what they really are, much like hundreds of years ago or more recently, a few decades ago.
I find large vehicles, such as those pickup trucks that rival the Hummer, to be disgusting, not because of any potential to cause global warming that they are conjectured to have, but because those vehicles increase the demand for oil, raising gasoline prices and obstruct my view of the road, hurting my fuel economy by cutting my ability to coast to red lights. I really like it when I see a Toyota Prius because they contribute less to the demand for oil than other vehicles, lowering prices while allowing me to see the lights ahead. Being realistic, those are the two main reasons to encourage people to have smaller, more efficient vehicles, and if people would stop trying to get the government to fix things, we would see people buying them.
By the way, I cannot think of a more severe insult that could be attributed to Americans than "the masses;" every single American has an identity and is not part of some swaying mass, which is why we Americans do not use such a word to describe ourselves. I would appreciate it if you would show more consideration when selecting your choice of words.
I find large vehicles, such as those pickup trucks that rival the Hummer, to be disgusting, not because of any potential to cause global warming that they are conjectured to have, but because those vehicles increase the demand for oil, raising gasoline prices and obstruct my view of the road, hurting my fuel economy by cutting my ability to coast to red lights. I really like it when I see a Toyota Prius because they contribute less to the demand for oil than other vehicles, lowering prices while allowing me to see the lights ahead. Being realistic, those are the two main reasons to encourage people to have smaller, more efficient vehicles, and if people would stop trying to get the government to fix things, we would see people buying them.
By the way, I cannot think of a more severe insult that could be attributed to Americans than "the masses;" every single American has an identity and is not part of some swaying mass, which is why we Americans do not use such a word to describe ourselves. I would appreciate it if you would show more consideration when selecting your choice of words.
Well you won't have to say hummers are disgusting vehicles anymore, Because in the next few years, that brand will have Biofuel engines in all of the hummer trucks.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
