California - Bay Area S2000 Owners California Bay Area S2000 Owners Group

Anyone Else Noticing This Trend?

Thread Tools
 
Old 11-25-2011, 06:06 PM
  #11  
Registered User

 
yamez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: fourzeroeight
Posts: 4,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Voodoo_S2K
I personally hope they keep on making hybrid cars, at it tends to push technology battery technology forward. While I'm a big fan of my gas burning car, I don't see it as a viable long term solution for our planet. It isn't all about MPG.
i agree with you. i saw them tesla prototypes and as well as what kind of batteries they are trying to develop.
Old 11-26-2011, 11:25 AM
  #12  
Registered User

Thread Starter
 
rob-2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,657
Received 170 Likes on 125 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Offtrack
I spent a bit of time evaluating the pros and cons of a hybrid a couple years ago and also found the benefits to be not that great, if at all, over a high efficiency gas alternative. I decided the only benefit I would have realized was the ability to use the HOV lanes while commuting to and from work. Luckily I ultimately decided I would likely get bored with a hybrid very quickly and went with a high mileage gas vehicle and was glad when the hybrids were kicked out of the HOV lanes.
My figure years ago took $8/gallon gas and 7 years to break even on a hybrid car based on 15K driving a year. I sort of view hybrids like buying oil futures, expecting it only to rise.

Originally Posted by Voodoo_S2K
The environmental impact of the batteries tends to be overrated in my opinion. They are lasting significantly longer then expected (300k + miles in NY taxis) and they are almost 100% recycled when they have outlived their usefulness. I personally hope they keep on making hybrid cars, at it tends to push technology battery technology forward. While I'm a big fan of my gas burning car, I don't see it as a viable long term solution for our planet. It isn't all about MPG.
You raise a good point. If we could focus the energy generation to power plants, and get mileage of 300-400miles on a charge every starbucks could become the new gas station. 30minute charge times would give you time to pee and get a coffee. This type of system would HAVE to be better than burning gas. Consider 70% of the energy produced by a motor is in heat they are very inefficient.

Originally Posted by eklipz98
Good point for discussion Rob. I'll try to see what my friend's family in their Leaf averageWho has seen "who killed the electric car" (i think that's the title)?There is big money and alot of lobbying going on related to oil companies, car companies. So the bottle neck isn't always technological advancement.
Saw that doc. I think they just stalled the project of full EV cars for 10 years. If you recall in the 90's fuel was dirt cheap and many oil companies weren't turning healthy profits. So everyone had something to lose with EV cars.
Old 11-26-2011, 08:22 PM
  #13  

 
whiteflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Benicia, CA
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rob-2
Originally Posted by eklipz98' timestamp='1322269435' post='21186130
Good point for discussion Rob. I'll try to see what my friend's family in their Leaf averageWho has seen "who killed the electric car" (i think that's the title)?There is big money and alot of lobbying going on related to oil companies, car companies. So the bottle neck isn't always technological advancement.
Saw that doc. I think they just stalled the project of full EV cars for 10 years. If you recall in the 90's fuel was dirt cheap and many oil companies weren't turning healthy profits. So everyone had something to lose with EV cars.
Not just limited to car technology. Anyone care to explain why Tesla's technology has been supressed for so long, and 'modern science' finally admitting he was on to something? Or why we don't harness geothermal energy? The list goes on; Capitalism + humanism don't mix.

The problem with EV/Hybrid cars is that there is just zero return on investment as a purchaser. If you own the car long enough you may break even for the premium. All you get is the hipster factor; and minus Tesla a pretty atrocious car. The only EV car that makes sense is the leaf, and that only makes sense if you never have to leave town with it.
Old 11-27-2011, 04:56 AM
  #14  
Registered User
 
S2KN05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by whiteflash
Originally Posted by rob-2' timestamp='1322339109' post='21187267
[quote name='eklipz98' timestamp='1322269435' post='21186130']
Good point for discussion Rob. I'll try to see what my friend's family in their Leaf averageWho has seen "who killed the electric car" (i think that's the title)?There is big money and alot of lobbying going on related to oil companies, car companies. So the bottle neck isn't always technological advancement.
Saw that doc. I think they just stalled the project of full EV cars for 10 years. If you recall in the 90's fuel was dirt cheap and many oil companies weren't turning healthy profits. So everyone had something to lose with EV cars.
Not just limited to car technology. Anyone care to explain why Tesla's technology has been supressed for so long, and 'modern science' finally admitting he was on to something? Or why we don't harness geothermal energy? The list goes on; Capitalism + humanism don't mix.

The problem with EV/Hybrid cars is that there is just zero return on investment as a purchaser. If you own the car long enough you may break even for the premium. All you get is the hipster factor; and minus Tesla a pretty atrocious car. The only EV car that makes sense is the leaf, and that only makes sense if you never have to leave town with it.
[/quote]

There is a documentary that explains why we use gas instead of other tech. I forgot the name of this documentary but basically at the start of car era, there were a few tech powering cars; combustion, steam, electric... etc. Combustion engine won out because of the invention of the electric starter and the ease of refueling.
Old 11-27-2011, 05:15 AM
  #15  

 
danvuquoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

While a lot of the new battery tech that has been developed as a result a move towards mobility for computing devices as well hybrid development, a lot of it is still a ways out from release to market. It's crucial that we keep developing that, but its also crucial that we keep moving away from coal fired power plants to support the charging infrastructure of that power.

Also in the long run, dense cities with transportation infrastructure make a whole lot more sense than suburbs -- the "get yours" land / home attitude is the single biggest reason for the necessity of cars, depletion of natural resources, and air pollution.
Old 11-27-2011, 10:05 AM
  #16  

 
Voodoo_S2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by whiteflash
Not just limited to car technology. Anyone care to explain why Tesla's technology has been supressed for so long, and 'modern science' finally admitting he was on to something? Or why we don't harness geothermal energy? The list goes on; Capitalism + humanism don't mix.
Interesting argument there when you consider that probably almost everything you enjoy in your daily life were developed as a direct result of capitalism.
Old 11-27-2011, 10:07 AM
  #17  
Registered User

Thread Starter
 
rob-2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,657
Received 170 Likes on 125 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by danvuquoc
While a lot of the new battery tech that has been developed as a result a move towards mobility for computing devices as well hybrid development, a lot of it is still a ways out from release to market. It's crucial that we keep developing that, but its also crucial that we keep moving away from coal fired power plants to support the charging infrastructure of that power.

Also in the long run, dense cities with transportation infrastructure make a whole lot more sense than suburbs -- the "get yours" land / home attitude is the single biggest reason for the necessity of cars, depletion of natural resources, and air pollution.
Great point. There is a doc netflix has streaming called The end of sububria. It tracks how first subdivisions actually had light rail installed, which was free to ride. Paid for by your property tax. However auto industries saw this as a threat and bought them up just to close them down.

I think we all live lives that are made possible by cheap energy. You hear people talking about commuting further so they can live in bigger homes. Everyone is falsly living under the notion that $4 gas is the new norm and everything points toward $8-10.

I agree with you Dan, battery technology is improving and when ranges get to the normal tank of gas (400 miles) I will seriously consider buying a normal looking electric car. We want to buy one now but the costs just don't support the benefit. So in the near term we've just cut back on our driving, going from around 30k/year down to 12kish. We now live closer to where we work.

Electric cars have to come a lot way. We need a real 300 mile distance to be useful for our needs and awd. I suspect it will be a long time before we see AWD electric.

I think the Volt does something interesting though. It gets people use to an electric car experience while protecting them from running into a dead battery downside. If they could get the EV mode up to 150-200 miles it would dramatically improve the interest in this car for me. Oh and the motor should burn diesel.

What I cannot help but wonder though is if there is a physical limitation to the amount of energy that can be stored. I'm under the impression that a lot of the downsides are in weight. Suggesting to me that the amount of energy we require might 'weigh' too much to be practical.
Old 11-27-2011, 07:09 PM
  #18  

 
danvuquoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rob-2
Oh and the motor should burn diesel.
I'm not sure what American consumers have against diesel -- granted something like a Peugeot 107 is a small car, it gets 57 mpg out of its diesel motor and passes Euro 4 emissions (side note, I wonder how Euro 4/5/6 emissions standards compares to California standards).
Old 11-28-2011, 07:52 AM
  #19  
Registered User

Thread Starter
 
rob-2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,657
Received 170 Likes on 125 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by danvuquoc
Originally Posted by rob-2' timestamp='1322420824' post='21188733
Oh and the motor should burn diesel.
I'm not sure what American consumers have against diesel -- granted something like a Peugeot 107 is a small car, it gets 57 mpg out of its diesel motor and passes Euro 4 emissions (side note, I wonder how Euro 4/5/6 emissions standards compares to California standards).
Well California banned it for 10 years or so I thought. I think this set Diesel back some ways. In that time Diesel went from black exhaust to clean and quiet. Most of the country is going to remember them us under powered dirty cars. Which is not the modern diesel.

My understanding is the key difference between Euro and CA emission standards is our KOX standard which is set very low hurting hit compression motors. So I've been told.
Old 11-28-2011, 07:55 AM
  #20  
Registered User

 
BrianZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Bay
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by danvuquoc
Originally Posted by rob-2' timestamp='1322420824' post='21188733
Oh and the motor should burn diesel.
I'm not sure what American consumers have against diesel -- granted something like a Peugeot 107 is a small car, it gets 57 mpg out of its diesel motor and passes Euro 4 emissions (side note, I wonder how Euro 4/5/6 emissions standards compares to California standards).
One of the problems is that in cali we have Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel here. A lot of the older cars cannot pass current emissions with it. On top of that is our crash safety ratings. Just as an example - VW makes the POLO Bluemotion that gets about 70 MPG out of a diesel engine. From what I have been told it that the car cannot pass safety standards here.

There are some issues with a diesel hybrid. I'm not 100% sure but I believe it has to do with the constant starting and stopping of the motor. Next time I talk to one of the engineers that work with diesels I'll ask.


Quick Reply: Anyone Else Noticing This Trend?



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:44 PM.