http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en
Today's topics:
* Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense' - 14
messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/360dc4f4d62b4736?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/360dc4f4d62b4736?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 3 2011 7:41 pm
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Clive <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This raises an interesting question, if the battery is getting hot
>through current draw, then it has greater internal resistance than is
>good for it, causing a voltage drop across the motor terminals, which
>will of course mean lower torque and top speed.
Right. But what is the question?
Life is just like that. Nothing has zero resistance, and we're talking
an awful lot of watts here. Battery technology improves but there is
always some resistive loss.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 2:33 am
From: Bjorn
On 3 mar, 13:44, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
> "Clive" <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > I don't see that
>
> they're "green" at all. Electricity has to be> generated somewhere and that generator uses fuel, all driving electric
> > cars do is move the pollution to a different district.
> > --
> > Clive
>
> Our electrical generation plants are for the most part coal fired in the
> USA. This process may be as cheap as we have but is not as good
> as it gets.
>
> There is some hydroelectric, of course, but not as in Scandinavia.
>
> And, we shut the door on atomic power plants a long time back. It
> will take time to make up the lost ground, if we even reopen that
> technology.
>
> We are diddling with wind power and solar, but that is also in its
> early stages.
>
> I dont see that there is any clear answer, especially in a country
> where no one wants to cooperate with anyone else, and where the
> government is run by buffoons with their hands out.
I guess that atomic power will come back and then it will be
electricity for the vehicles.
They decided to stop atomic in many countries some decades ago but it
is coming back now that oil is disappearing.
Whatever it will be after oil it will not be used directly in cars so
the electrical path for cars is a sure thing whatever will be used to
generate it.
You would not put coal in cars but using coal to create electricity is
ok and new technology is possible to make coal power plants better and
they need not pollute.
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 3:21 am
From: Clive
In message <ikpn0q$7d5$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> writes
>Life is just like that. Nothing has zero resistance, and we're talking
>an awful lot of watts here. Battery technology improves but there is
>always some resistive loss.
This is the point behind the lead/acid battery, the internal resistance
is so low that you can still get 300 amps to the starter terminals at 12
volts.
--
Clive
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 4:10 am
From: Bjorn
On 4 mar, 11:21, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ikpn0q$7d...@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
> <klu...@panix.com> writes>Life is just like that. Nothing has zero resistance, and we're talking
> >an awful lot of watts here. Battery technology improves but there is
> >always some resistive loss.
>
> This is the point behind the lead/acid battery, the internal resistance
> is so low that you can still get 300 amps to the starter terminals at 12
> volts.
> --
> Clive
It is interesting to read about the batteries in Tesla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 4:33 am
From: Roger Blake
On 2011-03-03, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Obama Motors is selling 25,000 of the first 2 years (30,000)
> Volts to GE which is headed by Obama's new BFF Imelt.
>
> Nice sale! Probably a tough negotiation in there someplace.
About the only way they're going to move those overpriced turkeys
(and Government Motors is still losing money on every one!) is
0bama forcing them down peoples' throats, and forcing them into
corporate fleets is probably seen as a good place to start.
They've only had 281 voluntary Volt takers in Februrary, most likely
all braindead environmentalist types. Nissan Leaf sales were even
more dismal at 87 sold.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 5:01 am
From: Roger Blake
On 2011-03-03, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
> maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
> wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
The six-cylinder engine in my 1975 Hornet is a marvel of simplicity
and durability. In the 36 years since it was manufactured it has
required no internal repairs, just service of peripheral systems
which are inexpensive and simple to deal with. The 3-speed Chrysler
Torqueflite transmission is still smooth and responsive and has
likewise never required internal repairs.
The driveline is about as bulletproof as one could want, much more
reliable and inexpensive to service overall than an array of batteries
would have been over the same period of time.
> An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer.
To fully replace gas and diesel engines with electric motors you
need BATTERIES (or some more exotic electricity source) that will
allow the car to drive for hundreds of miles with lights, air
conditioner, and other accessories running - on the freeway where
there is virtually no stopping to take advantage of regenerative
braking. You need to be able to haul trailers and heavy work loads
while maintaining range. The batteries will need to be fully
rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
a trip.) You're going to need to provide some means to recharge
them wherever they are, including parking lots of apartment and
condo complexes. And the batteries should either be inexpensive
to replace or last the life of the vehicle. (Which from my standpoint
needs to be at least 20-30 years if not more.)
Until you have batteries that can do all this (and we are a long ways
from that), your vision of an all-electric vehicle future is nothing
more than a 1970s pipe dream of what the year 2000 will be like.
> goes, living with an automobile should be a lot easier. People in the
> future will be surprised at how much we had to put up with in the
> internal combustion engine.
It is much more likely that people in the near future will still be using
internal combustion engines. Fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?
Possibly by then there will be a breakthrough that will permit a truly
usable, general-purpose electric vehicle. Or perhaps not. Don't know and
don't care, I won't be around to worry about it; but it is a no-brainer
that internal combustion will still be around at least as long as I am.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 5:36 am
From: Bjorn
On 4 mar, 13:01, Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2011-03-03, dsi1 <d...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>
> > The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
> > maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
> > wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
>
> The six-cylinder engine in my 1975 Hornet is a marvel of simplicity
> and durability. In the 36 years since it was manufactured it has
> required no internal repairs, just service of peripheral systems
> which are inexpensive and simple to deal with. The 3-speed Chrysler
> Torqueflite transmission is still smooth and responsive and has
> likewise never required internal repairs.
>
> The driveline is about as bulletproof as one could want, much more
> reliable and inexpensive to service overall than an array of batteries
> would have been over the same period of time.
>
> > An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer.
>
> To fully replace gas and diesel engines with electric motors you
> need BATTERIES (or some more exotic electricity source) that will
> allow the car to drive for hundreds of miles with lights, air
> conditioner, and other accessories running - on the freeway where
> there is virtually no stopping to take advantage of regenerative
> braking. You need to be able to haul trailers and heavy work loads
> while maintaining range. The batteries will need to be fully
> rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
> with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
> a trip.) You're going to need to provide some means to recharge
> them wherever they are, including parking lots of apartment and
> condo complexes. And the batteries should either be inexpensive
> to replace or last the life of the vehicle. (Which from my standpoint
> needs to be at least 20-30 years if not more.)
>
> Until you have batteries that can do all this (and we are a long ways
> from that), your vision of an all-electric vehicle future is nothing
> more than a 1970s pipe dream of what the year 2000 will be like.
>
> > goes, living with an automobile should be a lot easier. People in the
> > future will be surprised at how much we had to put up with in the
> > internal combustion engine.
>
> It is much more likely that people in the near future will still be using
> internal combustion engines. Fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?
> Possibly by then there will be a breakthrough that will permit a truly
> usable, general-purpose electric vehicle. Or perhaps not. Don't know and
> don't care, I won't be around to worry about it; but it is a no-brainer
> that internal combustion will still be around at least as long as I am.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
> Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
>
> "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
> protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
> an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
> resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Trains are driving on electricity and there are plans to allow
vehicles on the road get electricity from lines above the road similar
to what trains do today.
Then you do not need very much of batteries in the vehicle itself.
It is not a question of what you want or would like to do it is more a
question of what you can do when there is no more oil.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 7:44 am
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Clive <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ikpn0q$7d5$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
><kludge@panix.com> writes
>>Life is just like that. Nothing has zero resistance, and we're talking
>>an awful lot of watts here. Battery technology improves but there is
>>always some resistive loss.
>
>This is the point behind the lead/acid battery, the internal resistance
>is so low that you can still get 300 amps to the starter terminals at 12
>volts.
300 amps at 12V is not even five horsepower. You want real peak current,
a NiCd will do a whole lot better than a lead/acid cell because of much
lower internal resistance... and a lithium stack better than that.
But you don't get 100% efficiency no matter what, and even with 99%
efficiency you're still going to be dumping considerable heat just because
of the number of kilowatts involved.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 7:54 am
From: Vinnie
AMuzi wrote:
>>
> " major automaker is selling all the Volts they can produce."
>
> Obama Motors is selling 25,000 of the first 2 years (30,000) Volts to GE
> which is headed by Obama's new BFF Imelt.
>
> Nice sale! Probably a tough negotiation in there someplace.
>
Lying gets you nowhere any more.
Ain't it a shame?
This says it's 12,000 Volts over 5 years, and 13,000 "other" electric.
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1051446_ge-buying-25k-evs--starting-with-the-2011-chevrolet-volt
What's even more stupid is to be surprised that a company called General
ELECTRIC says it is committed to buying electrically propelled cars.
Even more stupid yet is to believe anything a CEO says.
Duh.
Ciao!
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 8:22 am
From: Clive
In message <ikr1dr$mpg$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> writes
>But you don't get 100% efficiency no matter what, and even with 99%
>efficiency you're still going to be dumping considerable heat just because
>of the number of kilowatts involved.
Whilst efficiency is important in overall terms, it low internal
resistance that gives the motor the volts and amps it wants.
--
Clive
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 8:43 am
From: "Daniel who wants to know"
> "Bjorn" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0d735dd5-9ef8-4bb3-a466-6371454e3b41@o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> Trains are driving on electricity and there are plans to allow
> vehicles on the road get electricity from lines above the road similar
> to what trains do today.
>
> Then you do not need very much of batteries in the vehicle itself.
>
> It is not a question of what you want or would like to do it is more a
> question of what you can do when there is no more oil.
We all just as well give up arguing, Roger won't ever "get it". Not
everybody who wants a Prius is a "tree hugging eco-weenie" which BTW note
how the ICE lovers are always strong burly manly men and anyone else is a
weenie.
I want a Prius not for any global environmental impact, real or imagined I
want it partly for the local impact but mostly for the power possibilities
ala the Pri-UPS project (use the car as a near silent 5kw backup generator)
I couldn't care less about AGW but what I do care about is sitting behind
cars like Roger's at a red light and having to put up with his un-catalytic
converter-ed exhaust. Call me selfish but it is my lungs after all (I don't
smoke either).
Other than that people who go "a certain compact or subcompact from 1988 got
the same MPG as a Prius" don't get it either. The Prius is a midsize built
primarily for low emissions, not for MPG. The fact that it gets better MPG
than a smaller vehicle, such as the Echo/Yaris (which uses the same engine)
is just a bonus. That it gets better MPG than a smaller Diesel car is
amazing considering the no throttle loss and more energy (and cost) per
gallon of Diesel. For instance it (NHW20 US model) has a wideband front O2
sensor, a Thermos bottle (Dewar flask) that stores hot coolant to help it
warm up faster, a flexible/inflatable "bladder" in the fuel tank and a
filler neck seal that stops the escape of vapors that make you smell like
gas, and when first started cold it drives on battery power and runs the ICE
with extremely retarded ignition timing to send more heat out the exhaust
manifold and help "light off" the catalytic converter faster.
Other than that I don't want the ZVW30 Prius (2010,2011-...) because IMO
they FUBARed it with the interior dash/console suspended arch, they removed
the Thermos bottle if favor of an exhaust heat recovery device, removed the
fuel bladder, changed the hydraulic braking system, and bumped the engine
from a 1.5 to a 1.8.
Until I can get an NHW20 I will just keep driving my 2nd gen Lumina 3100
with the MIL on for an EGR insufficient flow code until summer when I can
pull the intake and clean the passages and replace the gaskets.
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 8:42 am
From: Clive
In message <20110304123344@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> writes
>The batteries will need to be fully
>rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
>with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
>a trip.)
All it needs is a bit of imaginative thinking. Trains get their juice
from either a static rail or overhead cable. What's wrong in putting
strips over hundreds of miles of motorway and allow cars to pick up
juice on the move, batteries then only for towns and parking?
--
Clive
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 9:20 am
From: Vic Smith
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:43:57 -0600, "Daniel who wants to know"
<me@here.edu> wrote:
>
>Until I can get an NHW20 I will just keep driving my 2nd gen Lumina 3100
>with the MIL on for an EGR insufficient flow code until summer when I can
>pull the intake and clean the passages and replace the gaskets.
>
Had that last year on mine, a '97.
Just pulled the EGR, put a short section of dog cable in a drill, and
cleaned the port from there.
I had picked up an EGR gasket at a parts store for a buck or two, but
could have used the old gasket.
Hardest thing was finding the dog cable.
I had read that thick weed whacker cable would work, but only had thin
stuff. Don't think ANY weed whacker cable would have cleared it, as
it was almost solidly plugged.
Then I spotted the old kinked dog cable behind a box in the garage,
It's stranded, and about 3/16" to 1/4" thick.
Think about having something like that when you start.
Even if you pull the throttle body, you need to clean that passage..
--Vic
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 11:24 pm
From: dsi1
On 3/4/2011 3:01 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-03-03, dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
>> maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
>> wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
>
> The six-cylinder engine in my 1975 Hornet is a marvel of simplicity
> and durability. In the 36 years since it was manufactured it has
> required no internal repairs, just service of peripheral systems
> which are inexpensive and simple to deal with. The 3-speed Chrysler
> Torqueflite transmission is still smooth and responsive and has
> likewise never required internal repairs.
How is any of this relevant?
>
> The driveline is about as bulletproof as one could want, much more
> reliable and inexpensive to service overall than an array of batteries
> would have been over the same period of time.
>
>> An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer.
>
> To fully replace gas and diesel engines with electric motors you
> need BATTERIES (or some more exotic electricity source) that will
> allow the car to drive for hundreds of miles with lights, air
> conditioner, and other accessories running - on the freeway where
> there is virtually no stopping to take advantage of regenerative
> braking. You need to be able to haul trailers and heavy work loads
> while maintaining range. The batteries will need to be fully
> rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
> with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
> a trip.) You're going to need to provide some means to recharge
> them wherever they are, including parking lots of apartment and
> condo complexes. And the batteries should either be inexpensive
> to replace or last the life of the vehicle. (Which from my standpoint
> needs to be at least 20-30 years if not more.)
It's frustrating talking to you guys. It's always the same thing -
everybody knows the major problem is with the batteries. It's the reason
we all ain't driving electric cars. WE GOT THAT, OK?
>
> Until you have batteries that can do all this (and we are a long ways
> from that), your vision of an all-electric vehicle future is nothing
> more than a 1970s pipe dream of what the year 2000 will be like.
>
>> goes, living with an automobile should be a lot easier. People in the
>> future will be surprised at how much we had to put up with in the
>> internal combustion engine.
>
> It is much more likely that people in the near future will still be using
> internal combustion engines. Fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?
> Possibly by then there will be a breakthrough that will permit a truly
> usable, general-purpose electric vehicle. Or perhaps not. Don't know and
> don't care, I won't be around to worry about it; but it is a no-brainer
> that internal combustion will still be around at least as long as I am.
>
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment