Great idea, EricGo!

I wonder if this article was intended to play local NYC politics on purchasing hybrid taxis?

Doesn't seem odd to you that the NYC Times is anti-hybrid but left-leaning?

 

The misquote is inexcusable. The quotes are obviously slanted to fit the point of the article. Hope you get an explanation and apology. I also volunteered for him to contact me. Guess he couldn't reach me.

Misquotes aside, the article makes a point, whether that was the intent or not. The industry is not using this technology to its full advantage. We need more options that get 50+ MPG. That reduces consumption, and is more environmentally friendly. I don't care if that comes in a $21,000 Civic or a $35,000 Accord. If BMW made a 3-series that got 50 MPG and performed well, I'd own one in a heartbeat (well, maybe I'd have to wait for a used one of those... ).

I think we're starting to be pacified with a few high-mileage options while the industry is putting hybrid technology in vehicles where the mileage is only a secondary thought and the key motivator is performance. I think the car makers are holding out on us. I think they can make a 50 MPG Accord. I suppose I was being naive to think politics wouldn't be involved.

I just want them to keep moving forward, not just equip already high-end cars with more high-end performance and only realize +2 or 3 MPG.

Oh - and anyone supporting the technology deserves the tax break. Gas savings shouldn't matter. If you're buying a hybrid, you're casting a vote that says this technology is important. In some cases, you're paying more for a car that will never be recovered in gas savings (any time soon). That's worth a tax break.

 

I know this is not the topic of your post, but do a google search on vapor carburetor:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

See what you find. The technology has been proven to work time & time again and delivers FE well beyond hybrid. The problem is not the technology but the politics. Every time it is scheduled to go into production factories are threatened to scrap the production plans, inventers are often bought out or worse.

My own father and a few of partners were involved in such a project and applied it to a full size 1964 Ford sedan and did an average of 40MPG. An auto part factory in Minnesota tested it and wanted to produce it. They had an extra plant in idle and was going to devote the space and tooling to produce these. The plant manufactured numerous other auto parts from muflers to gasgets.
The day after papers were signed the factory called it off because if they went along and built these they would loose all their other production business.
The project ended at that point.
The individual who actually held the patents on the device lost touch with the other partners (My dad included).

If you don't believe then do the google search and some reading.
Politics? You bet.

 

Delta Flyer,

I DID wonder about this negative article appearing in the NYT. The paper is not all one-sided, though. I can't reference a link at the moment, but I have read very positive hybrid articles in the NYT, and one of their most popular computer tech writers David Pogue is a Prius owner and unabashed supporter and promoter of hybrids in his columns.

It *is* interesting that this article came out around the same time that the taxi fleet is going hybrid. I guess time will tell if an editorial bias develops; in the meantime, perhaps a thread to co-write a letter to the editor with Jason ? It would be kind of cool to sign it " Jason, and the "GreenHybrid forum at large "

 

hmm, I read the article with an eye toward debating points ..

and have come away with a different opinion. I don't doubt that Mark was portrayed in a light he had not intended, but now I don't think the article was anti-hybrid at all, but rather a plea for the technology to be used for FE, and not performance gains.

I have to say, that I completely agree. If the end use of hybrid tech ends up more hummers on the road, because the hybrid tech gets them up to 20 mpg, then we have achieved naught.

Some of the state credits require minimum FE to be eligible. I would go further, and say FE and pollution thresholds, UNRELATED to tech. Hybrid, after all, is a means, not the goal. If it is used in a way beneficial to society, subsidize it. Otherwise, tax the consumer for being wasteful.

Clearly our HAH drivers do better than the NYT article suggests, and that deserves airing. It does not, however, change the main lament of the article.

 

That is the way I read the article too ... and was the point that the writer intended to get across IMHO.

I was asked to give an opinion follow up to the Wired Nextfest in Chicago last month and came away with a similar comment. Although for the most part I found it a great high tech mix of technology and marketing, I would have enjoyed a slower less crowded (and quieter) pace to look at the exhibits. One irritation that I mentioned to the review, was that clean alternative energy in a sponsors display, (GM) had placed the larger than life Hummer front center. I'm not sure it was the best way for them to demonstrating its Hydrogen research? Nevertheless, they are in a business and attempt to give 'us' what we want to buy. (obviously 'we've' bought SUVs)

I'm thrilled to see what is on the horizon, but was a bit put off that it was shown in a Hummer. These vehicles have their place ... but as an Insight crushing, soccer mom status vehicle, I'm not as fond of it.

 

That is big part of it, another factor is that controversy draws more attention than affirming that somerthing performs as expected. An article saying that a product falls short of a promise also confirms in a lot of people's minds the idea that businesses go out of their way to lie/misdirect people, when the problem of FE in the hybrids is no so much in the equipment but the driving style.

I would beg to differ on this for this simple reason: by having a hybrid system, you're still getting better performance from the same (or slightly less) fuel consumption, instead of achieving better performance by adding more engine displacement and using much more fuel to get the same extra performance. If hybrid systems were added to every single car on the road, and they were driven exactly the same way, there would be less overall fuel consumption. Putting out lots of "high end" hybrids is a (over-?)reaction to the idea that hybrid tech is only applicable to small, high-mileage economy cars. The performance booster avenue has a lot of potential, as does the hypermiler avenue, and that technology improvements in both areas would benefit each other (ie reduced drivetrain losses, aerodynamics, battery packs etc). The Accord gains a lot of performance from only a 15HP motor.

What I would like to see is a 4-cylinder car similar to the Civic hybrid setup, but with a much larger electric motor that can run with the engine completely disengaged (for regen and electric mode). Next, there could be a "hybrid" battery pack with conventional batteries (storing up power) as well as fast-discharge capactitors (high-load acceleration without wearing out the batteries) Next, add a 6-speed "manual" transmission that is shifted electronically, and coasts automatically. Finally, let the driver choose from different modes (ie performance, economy, assist-disabled, all electric, and optional manual shifting) That setup could have performacne of an Accord hybrid, with better fuel economy than a Civic Hybrid. I just can't say I see performance or FE as mutually exclusive.

 

....the prevalance of obesity the last decade has increased the incidence of diabetes including "double diabetes"

Recent articles indicate that while being overweight and fit is better than inactive, being a desirable weight and fit is better. Civilian hybrids Hummers seem like being fit but still overweight - still need to lose the pounds....got to head to the gym.

 

I think all new vehicles sold should be at least capable of stopping and starting the ICE automatically, there's all kinds of ways to improve the FE of the vehicles on the road, consumers are demanding it, but the manufacturers are very slow to implement such things, mostly because they realize it will not improve the profitability of the vehicle. Unfortunately that's the bottom line, until we choose smaller scale production over large scale production we will be consumers of whatever they think we should consume. There's a lot of politics, religion and business involved in the destruction of important inventions that should have changed our lives, but instead are snuffed out. We could all be driving electric vehicles now if the plug had not been pulled on the E.V. Gray motor and the Tesla energy amplification circuits he was using. It's rather pathetic when you look back at automotive history to see how far we haven't come. It's good to see hybrids finally on the market, but we're still a long way from making a dent in the FE of the whole fleet, let alone cleaning up our massive emissions problem.

 

Speaking of emissions, I read a story a few months ago that said "ANY vehicle can be made a PZEV with about $200 in modifications at the factory." (I'll see if I can locate that story.)

If that is true, the CEOs of all the car companies ought to be taken out and beaten with barbed whips every day at dusk for about 5 years.

If we could clean up all the cars and the car companies are just "too greedy" to put a dang $200 modification into a car, what the HECK is going on in this world?