• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another monkey puzzle: cars

Ziggurat said:
Yeah, but that's even stupider. Imagine two cars, each mechanically identical, and which cost exactly the same. One car is artificially speed-limited, the other is not. Which one is your typical consumer going to buy? The non-speed-limited one, of course, because it can do everything the speed-limited car can do and more, so it's an obviously better buy. Why, then, would any car maker ever artificially restrict the speed limit on a consumer car? They wouldn't, and they don't. Artificial speed limits do not provide a consumer any benefit. If you want to stay under a certain speed to conserve fuel, you don't need the car to do that for you. The only case where this might get any demand is when the driver is not the owner, such as rentals or commercial fleet vehicles, where the owner wants the cars driven differently than the actual driver might choose. But that's not the majority of cars (and even with rentals, if you set the speed too low you're going to get consumers bailing to competitors). So if you want to talk about speed-limited cars for consumers, you're basically only going to be talking about cars without enough power to driver faster than a certain speed.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with all of this. The only way speed limited cars will happen is by government mandate. Even then there would be a huge outcry from consumers. Then there is the aftermarket where devices to defeat these limiters are sold. I know that some high performance cars are limited at 300kmh and I've been in an SUV that seemed to hit a rev limiter at 180kmh. No doubt there is a chip to bypass this. (If you really need to drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee at over 180kmh.)

Most people don't even bother to drive for fuel economy they just know that they are late or just need to get to the front of the line. I find that driving for fuel economy can be a challenge that not only saves money but can actually be less stressful.

I was just thinking that it would be easy these days to equip cars with a card reader or something similar that the driver would have to swipe. It could contain info that the car could use to do things like limit speed. Might save some teenagers lives. I'm really torn on stuff like this. Part of me despises it and part of me thinks it could be a good idea.

Something of note: I don't know about elsewhere but highway tractors (semis) around here have 110kmh speed limiters as well as speed logging devices.
 
jimlintott said:
I know that some high performance cars are limited at 300kmh and I've been in an SUV that seemed to hit a rev limiter at 180kmh.
Click to expand...

Once you hit speeds like 300 kmh, you need to start worrying about safety issues like whether or not the tires can even work without flying apart, or the brakes won't overheat from just trying to slow down. With limits that high I think most people won't even realize it exists because they'll never run into it.

Most people don't even bother to drive for fuel economy they just know that they are late or just need to get to the front of the line. I find that driving for fuel economy can be a challenge that not only saves money but can actually be less stressful.
Click to expand...

I suspect this will become more common in the future, though. I had a fancy loaner car for two days while mine was in the shop, and it had one of those instantaneous gas mileage indicators that told me how my fuel consumption was changing even as I accelerated up a hill or coasted down one. It definitely made me more conscious about how I was driving. I think they're only on high-end cars (and hybrids) right now, but it's the sort of feature that will probably become standard over time. And it's the sort of thing consumers will go for, because unlike the artificial speed limiter, it gives them more capability and not less.

I was just thinking that it would be easy these days to equip cars with a card reader or something similar that the driver would have to swipe. It could contain info that the car could use to do things like limit speed. Might save some teenagers lives. I'm really torn on stuff like this. Part of me despises it and part of me thinks it could be a good idea.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a very good idea, but there are alternatives that try to address the same issue. In particular, I think you can get GPS tracking units for cars which will report to the owner if the car has been driven too fast. This won't stop a teen from speeding, but if the teen knows their parent will find out, and if they get chewed out for doing so, they're probably much less likely to drive recklessly. It's a way to address the same problem but again by providing more functionality instead of less.

Something of note: I don't know about elsewhere but highway tractors (semis) around here have 110kmh speed limiters as well as speed logging devices.
Click to expand...

I think that may fall under what I mentioned earlier: if the owner is not the driver, reduced functionality isn't necessarily a barrier to purchase.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, but that's even stupider. Imagine two cars, each mechanically identical, and which cost exactly the same. One car is artificially speed-limited, the other is not. Which one is your typical consumer going to buy? The non-speed-limited one, of course, because it can do everything the speed-limited car can do and more, so it's an obviously better buy. Why, then, would any car maker ever artificially restrict the speed limit on a consumer car? They wouldn't, and they don't.
Click to expand...
They would, and they do. Many large powerful cars made in Europe have a speed limiter fitted at the factory, I believe it's set to 155 mph. This is a Gentleman's Agreement between a few major manufacturers, there was no Government intervention needed (although it is possible that they came to this agreement to forestall EU action, I don't know).

Okay, so 155 mph is way higher than the speeds we're talking about, but the principle is there.

Many people buy cars based on expected fuel economy, so if you could make a case that a limited car would save money, I'm sure it would sell. Possibly insurance companies would bring their premiums down a bit as well - more savings. Additionally, how many parents would love to give their kids a car that was reined in a bit?

It wouldn't be for everybody, perhaps, but then what car is?
 
Last edited:
chriswl said:
This also affects trains too. Slow commuter trains packed with passengers are very efficient. But very high speed trains aren't. Eurostar trains produce as much CO2 per passenger as aeroplanes even though they are only one third the speed. Planes reduce drag by flying at high altitude where the air is very thin, trains are stuck at ground level.
Click to expand...

This comment compeled me to stop lurking and actually post :D

Do you have some kind of source for this information ? I'm having a hard time understanding how an electric train could produce CO2, especially since (apart from oposition to builing new high speed tracks) the TGV/Eurostar is usually considered relatively environmentaly friendly. Obviously, the means of generating the electricity used might itself produce CO2, though, but evaluating that must be pretty complex.
 
Ezekiel said:
This comment compeled me to stop lurking and actually post :D
Click to expand...

Good!

Obviously, the means of generating the electricity used might itself produce CO2, though, but evaluating that must be pretty complex.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably what is being counted. Complex, yes, but I think there are several decent studies estimating the average amount of CO2 produced per unit of electricity.
 
If you can provide a link to a study of this, I'd be interested :)

I'd always thought that trains were much more ecologicaly friendly than planes, and given that most of our (France's) electricity comes from nuclear power (a debatable decision on other accounts, but a positive choice compared to coal power when it comes to CO2 emissions) I have a hard time imagining that more CO2 could be generated on a per passenger basis.

I've tried to hunt around for some definitive figures on this and didn't find much yet. The only thing even remotely useful I've read is at www .tec-conseil.com/ docsPDF/ djerba.PDF (sorry... not allowed to post links yet :p) . Unfortunately, it's in french, but the diagram on page 9 is labeled in english and seems to very strongly favor trains over all other modes of transportation.

ETA: since I seem to be 'derailing' the thread a little, I'll add something on topic ;)
I tend to agree with the view that people rarely buy a car on practical concerns : although the problem is very far from being as pronounced as it seems to be in the US, the number of SUVs and other absurdly huge cars is also increasing rapidly in France. So much so that there was/is talk of forbiding entry into the heart of Paris to the bigger ones, in a effort to reduce both pollution and accidents caused by having huge cars traveling lots of small streets.
 
Last edited:
Ezekiel said:
This comment compeled me to stop lurking and actually post :D

Do you have some kind of source for this information ? I'm having a hard time understanding how an electric train could produce CO2, especially since (apart from oposition to builing new high speed tracks) the TGV/Eurostar is usually considered relatively environmentaly friendly. Obviously, the means of generating the electricity used might itself produce CO2, though, but evaluating that must be pretty complex.
Click to expand...
The numbers come from report I read about in the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper on the web a year or two ago. I haven't got the link.

I'm assuming that for an electric train they are assuming that fossil fuel is used to generate the electricity.

There were some interesting findings. On a per seat basis, petrol cars, high speed trains and planes produced about the same CO2 per mile (though most cars have low occupancy rates so are less efficient per person). Diesel cars and lower speed trains were better.

So, the surprising things were:
- it's not necessarily greener to get the Eurostar rather than to fly
- a diesel passenger car is a pretty efficient way of transporting people if you make use of all the seats
- it uses less fuel per person to fly than to drive if you're the only one in the car (assuming the plane is fairly full).
 
chriswl,
I'm assuming that for an electric train they are assuming that fossil fuel is used to generate the electricity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but which kind of fossil fuel?

Coal? Fuel oil? Natural gas? maybe natural gas in a combined cycle power plant?
Check a comparative:

www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EmissionKB.PDF

The difference in CO2 emissions between an old coal powerplant and a modern natural gas combined cycle powerplant is very high, so "fossil fuels" covers a large quantity of CO2 emission levels.
And still, all of them burn fuel at higher efficiency than any modern ICE car (combined cycle gas: 60% efficient, ICE car 25% efficient). And powerplants usually do a better work filtering the emissions to remove pollutants.

This topic has been beaten to death by scientist and economist, and nearly all studies conclude that electric cars remove a lot of pollution. Add nuclear power or eolics, and the question does not even make sense.
 
Those numbers are un-arguable with.

We need to ensure that as much of our energy is generated efficiently as possible (after all coal fired power stations are only 35-40% efficient) otherwise the energy efficiency advantage will be lost.

The range of the Tesla vehicle is impressive compared to other electric vehicles. I look forward to a road test to verify that such performance is actually achieved.
 
bjb said:
If you want a high top speed but don't mind limited passenger/cargo space and a short range, this is the vehicle for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_Cars_Tangohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Sparrow
Click to expand...

That's a nice idea, but the price is still a problem for most consumers. The lowest price listed is only a projected price for 2009, and still comes in at $19K. If you're rich and that price tag doesn't represent much money for you, AND it fits your driving profile and the small size is an advantage for you, then it might work. But if you only have enough money to buy basically one car, this isn't the car you're going to get.
 
Nobody seems to have mentioned the comfort factor.

I have two cars. One a large, well insultated (from noise etc.), powerful estate. The other is a small city car that get me c. 40mpg city cycle.

When I have to drive any distance at speed (e.g. motorway driving) there is no choice. In one I will arrive relaxed and stress free. In the other I will feel like I have been thrown in a tumble dryer with a AC/DC CD on full balst for a couple of hours.

Putting aside the comfort, the less stressful driving experience in my estate (esp. with cruise control engaged) provides for safer driving as well (less aggro.)
 
The Don,
We need to ensure that as much of our energy is generated efficiently as possible (after all coal fired power stations are only 35-40% efficient) otherwise the energy efficiency advantage will be lost.
Click to expand...
It seems some combined cycle system allow coal power plants to get near 60%. In case of using the heat excess for industrial purposes, the number can reach 80% efficiency.
It's also possible (in power plants) to use carbon sequestration methods to reduce CO2 emissions. I have the feeling that it will be proably mandatory in Europe in few years.

I am a bit puzzled about the extensive use of coal for energy production in the USA. Looking at the very high electricity consumption, nuclear seems the only way to go.
The range of the Tesla vehicle is impressive compared to other electric vehicles. I look forward to a road test to verify that such performance is actually achieved.
Click to expand...
But it's not so surprising. The record of range for an EV was acomplished using an inferior technology (Solectria Sunrise, 380 miles), the NiMH batteries.

http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/655.html

The catch is the Li-Ion battery technology. These batteries carry 3-4 times more energy density than Lead acid, but the cost is too high right now, and that's the reason the car will cost $80.000. Tesla is placing their bets about Li-Ion and polymer Li-Ion getting cheaper in few years, then they plan to prduce a cheaper Sedan.

EV technologies looks like this:
- Run-of-the-mill EV; Lead acid batteries, 30 Wh/Kg
- GM EV1; NiHM batteries, 70 Wh/kg (GM used Lead acid in the fist EV1 models, then changed to NiHM after buying the company Ovonics)
- Solectria sunrise; NiMH batteries
- Tesla roadster; Li-Ion batteries, 120 Wh/Kg
- Smart electric; Molten salt battery (Zebra) 100 Wh/Kg

It's a pity there is so little interest in Zebra batteries. These batteries don't employ any scarce material (like Lithium) and have excellent capabilities: high energy density, resist all temperatures, and have long life (unlike most Li-Ion batteries). Produced in high quantities, they should be really cheap.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat,
That's a nice idea, but the price is still a problem for most consumers. The lowest price listed is only a projected price for 2009, and still comes in at $19K. If you're rich and that price tag doesn't represent much money for you, AND it fits your driving profile and the small size is an advantage for you, then it might work. But if you only have enough money to buy basically one car, this isn't the car you're going to get.
Click to expand...
The tango is quite strange, but I don't think the price tag is so bad. An Smart will cost you $15k, and Smarts are quite popular in Europe.
Anyway, I think you miss the selling point of the Tango. That car accelerates from 0 to 100 kmh in 4 seconds! And it is very stable, take a look:

http://www.commutercars.com/images/theater/marinaAutocross/marina_mov.html
 
Last edited:
Peskanov said:
I am a bit puzzled about the extensive use of coal for energy production in the USA. Looking at the very high electricity consumption, nuclear seems the only way to go.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks to too many people who will believe anything, as long as coorporations/governments are the bad guy, nuclear is politically untenable at this time. I'd agree, though, we should be switching to more nuclear.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's a nice idea, but the price is still a problem for most consumers. The lowest price listed is only a projected price for 2009, and still comes in at $19K. If you're rich and that price tag doesn't represent much money for you, AND it fits your driving profile and the small size is an advantage for you, then it might work. But if you only have enough money to buy basically one car, this isn't the car you're going to get.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course, and I also agree with your opinions expressed in the "Who Killed The Electric Car?" thread. But many people do have $20K to spend on a second or third car. My wife drives a Toyota MR2 as a commuter car. She's a teacher so she occasionally uses my pickup truck to carry large objects to and from school. Our Honda Accord is our third car that we use for long trips and family outings. A small EV could easily replace the MR2, which also has very little passanger or cargo space. Of our three cars, the MR2 gets the most use, so an EV would greatly reduce the amount of gasoline we would use, at least in our family. Anyway, in my neighborhood, it is very common for people to own a huge truck or RV, for occasional vacation or boat-towing use. This seems to make sense to these people, but doesn't it make more sense to own a third, small car that can be driven every day?
 
bjb said:
You're right, of course, and I also agree with your opinions expressed in the "Who Killed The Electric Car?" thread. But many people do have $20K to spend on a second or third car.
Click to expand...

The real question isn't if "many" people have the money, but whether "enough" people have the money AND the desire for such cars. One problem is that this is just a projected figure for a future cost. It's much lower than their nearer-term estimates, which suggests to me they're depending on volume to drop the price sufficiently. If they can't get that volume, they can't maintain that price. We'll have to see. I'm actually hopeful it works out, but pessimistic about their ability to actually pull it off.

One neat thing I did find from following links on that page was this idea of an add-on for all-electrics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genset_trailer
You basically tow a small trailer behind the car which has a gas-powered motor and generator, basically turning your all-electric into a hybrid. It's an idea I hadn't thought of before which can extend the range of your all-electric to match ICE cars. But it's also merely a stop-gap measure: it's going to increase the cost significantly (I can't imagine one costing less than 5K, and probably a lot more due to low volumes), you'll still have little room for cargo compared to ICE cars, and your mileage with a trailer is going to be worse than with a normal hybrid (since you're basically driving a hybrid with worse air resistance from having a trailer and the weight of a whole lot more battery than the normal hybrid has).

But they might work out as rentals if electric cars start to catch on and they make a standard for the connection between the trailer and the EV that all manufacturers can share. Basically, you drive your all-electric around the city, and if on rare ocassion you want to take a road trip, you just rent the trailer (should cost less than renting a car). You need a critical mass of EV's BEFORE you can start doing such rentals, which means that there needs to be significant adoption of EV's before such trailers become a factor in encouraging yet more EV purchases. So I don't expect this any time soon (as in within the next 5-10 year). But it might happen further down the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom