Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
Dave wrote:
> In article <US5Je.42$MP5.13431@monger.newsread.com>, "FanJet"
> <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have
>> sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by
>> creating and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big
>> improve at all. Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid,
>> they veil the truth in a bunch of marketing crapola.
>
>
> FanJet, you obviously know a fair amount, but even more obvious,
> your mind is made up You are not going to be swayed by either the
> actual data (ex: mpg of Civic Hybrid vs Civic, mpg of Prius compared
> to any other like-size and performing vehicle), or by technical
> arguments (you haven't responded to my post where I list FOUR ways
> that hybrid design improves mpg). You also seem to see
> a lot of conspiracies (the above, and auto OEM's "insisting" that
> we use 5/20 oil).
I missed your 4 point post but recently replied. To be clear, I rather like
the Prius and might consider purchasing one. I like gadgets and that'd be
the reason for the purchase. I'd probably spend much time enhancing
performance (driving style wise) and would probably post some impressive
MPG figures. Nothing much more to say about 5/20 oil. The manufacturers made
the change, told us it was for improved fuel economy which, as you noted, it
doesn't deliver. I just reported the change.
> As to wall-plug hybrids, I'm pretty sure they come out ahead of the
> game in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency. Consider:
>
> Well-to-electric efficiency (US Mix) ~ 41%
> Round trip battery efficiency (charge-discharge) 80-90%
> Motor efficiency ~85%
> Multiply all three for the wallplug hybrid: 28-31%
> Compare to a typical ICE on a normal drive: ~20%
Way too many variables for me to deal with now.
> Plus the electric is from a variety of sources, not just crude oil,
> which is a benefit for "energy independence" (which is a bit of a
> pipe dream, but that's another debate).
Depends on location. I'm not overly fond of coal fired generation either but
it's got to come from somewhere.
> Yes, there is hype with hybrids. Big surprise, there is hype with
> most products and new technologies, both for and against. Yeah, it
> isn't a free lunch. But I do think it is quite clear that hybrids
> can increase fuel economy by say 20-30% across the board, and often
> quite a bit more. Again, at some cost ($, mass, complexity). So
> no, it might not be a slam-dunk. But I'd say it is a legitimate
> choice and I welcome the increased availability.
I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd
popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would
make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
> In article <US5Je.42$MP5.13431@monger.newsread.com>, "FanJet"
> <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll do nothing of the sort. My point is that car manufacturers have
>> sidelined innovative gasoline powered automobile improvements by
>> creating and selling a niche car that in practical terms isn't a big
>> improve at all. Further, exemplified by the new Honda Accord hybrid,
>> they veil the truth in a bunch of marketing crapola.
>
>
> FanJet, you obviously know a fair amount, but even more obvious,
> your mind is made up You are not going to be swayed by either the
> actual data (ex: mpg of Civic Hybrid vs Civic, mpg of Prius compared
> to any other like-size and performing vehicle), or by technical
> arguments (you haven't responded to my post where I list FOUR ways
> that hybrid design improves mpg). You also seem to see
> a lot of conspiracies (the above, and auto OEM's "insisting" that
> we use 5/20 oil).
I missed your 4 point post but recently replied. To be clear, I rather like
the Prius and might consider purchasing one. I like gadgets and that'd be
the reason for the purchase. I'd probably spend much time enhancing
performance (driving style wise) and would probably post some impressive
MPG figures. Nothing much more to say about 5/20 oil. The manufacturers made
the change, told us it was for improved fuel economy which, as you noted, it
doesn't deliver. I just reported the change.
> As to wall-plug hybrids, I'm pretty sure they come out ahead of the
> game in terms of well-to-wheel efficiency. Consider:
>
> Well-to-electric efficiency (US Mix) ~ 41%
> Round trip battery efficiency (charge-discharge) 80-90%
> Motor efficiency ~85%
> Multiply all three for the wallplug hybrid: 28-31%
> Compare to a typical ICE on a normal drive: ~20%
Way too many variables for me to deal with now.
> Plus the electric is from a variety of sources, not just crude oil,
> which is a benefit for "energy independence" (which is a bit of a
> pipe dream, but that's another debate).
Depends on location. I'm not overly fond of coal fired generation either but
it's got to come from somewhere.
> Yes, there is hype with hybrids. Big surprise, there is hype with
> most products and new technologies, both for and against. Yeah, it
> isn't a free lunch. But I do think it is quite clear that hybrids
> can increase fuel economy by say 20-30% across the board, and often
> quite a bit more. Again, at some cost ($, mass, complexity). So
> no, it might not be a slam-dunk. But I'd say it is a legitimate
> choice and I welcome the increased availability.
I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd
popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would
make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
FanJet wrote:
>
> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd
> popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would
> make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
"retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
company importing it?
>
> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the odd
> popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the Smart42 would
> make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
"retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
company importing it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:47:45 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>> What did I say that would lead anyone to believe otherwise? The issue
>> is how the hybrid system improves the efficiency of conversion of
>> gasoline to kinetic energy. Saying that the only source of energy is
>> gasoline is a red herring.
>
>'Gasoline only energy source' needs repeating because inserting energy
>conversions into an existing system doesn't magically result in an
>efficiency improvement. In the case of the hybrid, the real improvement is
>small and it is largely due to increased efficiencies that could be
>economically added to non-hybrid vehicles - like low resistance tyres, for
>example. Of course, like other efficiency improving hybrid systems, not
>everyone likes the results. In this case, the handling ability of low
>resistance tyres sux.
Let me explain it to you this way. They hybrid system allows the
horribly inefficient ICE to run closer to its theoretical efficiency
of 30% instead of its usual 20%. (These numbers come form other
posters in this thread along with explanations of the various ways in
which ICE efficiency is enhanced by the hybrid system.) Lets say that
instead of 20%, ICE efficiency goes to 25%. Now most of that energy
bypasses the hybrid system and goes straight to the wheels - no
conversion inefficiency. And the portion that does get converted
let's say it is the entire 5% gain, is handled more efficiently than
ICE. Let's say it is 50% efficient in total. That would mean that
overall efficiency of the gasoline-only powered vehicle would have
increased form 20 to 22.5%, a 12.5% increase.
Admittedly these numbers are made up but the reality is that the
system does make the vehicle much more efficient. I Googled the Civic
Hybrid (a great test bed since it is available with and without the
hybrid system) and found A Motor Trend one year test:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/oney...ct/index1.html
"We experimented with driving style to determine its impact on fuel
economy. One week, we'd be miserly efficient, carefully monitoring
shift points, accelerating slowly, and keeping speed under 65 mph on
Interstates. The next week, we'd drive it like a teenager in a
vinyl-emblazoned Si, going full throttle at all times. The 1100-mile
experiment using the exact same route showed mild driving returned
48.2 mpg and wild driving netted 46.1 mpg. Needless to say, that was
the end of granny mode." (They actually ended up getting about 41 mpg
over the 23,000 mile test.)
Now, I don't know what kind of milage the regular Civic gets in
typical driving, but I guess it might be 35 mpg on a good day. If so,
the hybrid is 17 - 33% more efficient. How much of that do you think
can be attributed to tires?
>> Of course, any conversion from one kind of energy to another involves
>> inefficiencies. Merely listing them out says nothing about the
>> overall efficiency of the system.
>
>When they are non-existent in the original system, listing them becomes very
>important.
List them all you want, but they don't alter the real world reality
that the hybrid system increases efficiency as measured in mpg of
gasoline, the only energy source they use.
>> Honda did use regenerative braking of a sort on a Civic model about 15
>> years ago. The computer would only allow the alternator to supply
>> power when the vehicle was decelerating (or if the battery charge
>> dropped too low.) It's benefit was pretty small.
>
>So simple. They should've kept it.
You missed the part about the benefit being very small.
>> You seem to believe that everyone who buys a hybrid thinks he owns a
>> perpetual motion machine. The fact is that the performance boost is
>> only needed for a short time. Most car engines spend only 1% of their
>> working hours producing their rated horsepower. There is lots of
>> extra capacity for charging the batteries.
>
>This depends entirely on need. Some needs are serious and immediate. For
>example, if I've just exhausted the battery by getting to speed and jocking
>for position on an interstate, what happens if I need maneuvering power to
>avoid a potential accident situation?
To exhaust the battery you would have to have been driving like a
maniac for an extended period of time.
> In this case, today's hybrid is
>actually a safety liability. I'd be interested in know the source for your
>use of 1%.
Common sense. If I try to get maximum power out of my engine for more
than a minute at a time, the fuel shuts off because the speed has
reached 130 mph. What percent of the time do you spend driving with
your foot on the floor?
> You need to keep in mind that the 'lots of extra capacity for
>charging the batteries' consumes gasoline that would not be consumed in a
>non-hybrid vehicle.
But it is consuming it more efficiently and you will get it back when
the motor assists.
>> Other posters have listed numerous reasons why hybrid systems increase
>> efficiency. It could be all academic except that hybrid cars are at
>> the top of the chart for high-milage gasoline road cars.
>
>Other than quoting MPG figures, not really.
Do you have a better way of measuring the efficiency of a
gasoline-only powered vehicle.
>The only system that is a net +
>is regenerative braking and, truth be told, it's not that big a deal. The
>chart topping had much more to do with driving style & political posturing
>than science.
How does political posturing affect fuel efficiency? And what driving
style do I have to adopt to get 46 mpg out of my GS-R?
wrote:
>> What did I say that would lead anyone to believe otherwise? The issue
>> is how the hybrid system improves the efficiency of conversion of
>> gasoline to kinetic energy. Saying that the only source of energy is
>> gasoline is a red herring.
>
>'Gasoline only energy source' needs repeating because inserting energy
>conversions into an existing system doesn't magically result in an
>efficiency improvement. In the case of the hybrid, the real improvement is
>small and it is largely due to increased efficiencies that could be
>economically added to non-hybrid vehicles - like low resistance tyres, for
>example. Of course, like other efficiency improving hybrid systems, not
>everyone likes the results. In this case, the handling ability of low
>resistance tyres sux.
Let me explain it to you this way. They hybrid system allows the
horribly inefficient ICE to run closer to its theoretical efficiency
of 30% instead of its usual 20%. (These numbers come form other
posters in this thread along with explanations of the various ways in
which ICE efficiency is enhanced by the hybrid system.) Lets say that
instead of 20%, ICE efficiency goes to 25%. Now most of that energy
bypasses the hybrid system and goes straight to the wheels - no
conversion inefficiency. And the portion that does get converted
let's say it is the entire 5% gain, is handled more efficiently than
ICE. Let's say it is 50% efficient in total. That would mean that
overall efficiency of the gasoline-only powered vehicle would have
increased form 20 to 22.5%, a 12.5% increase.
Admittedly these numbers are made up but the reality is that the
system does make the vehicle much more efficient. I Googled the Civic
Hybrid (a great test bed since it is available with and without the
hybrid system) and found A Motor Trend one year test:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/oney...ct/index1.html
"We experimented with driving style to determine its impact on fuel
economy. One week, we'd be miserly efficient, carefully monitoring
shift points, accelerating slowly, and keeping speed under 65 mph on
Interstates. The next week, we'd drive it like a teenager in a
vinyl-emblazoned Si, going full throttle at all times. The 1100-mile
experiment using the exact same route showed mild driving returned
48.2 mpg and wild driving netted 46.1 mpg. Needless to say, that was
the end of granny mode." (They actually ended up getting about 41 mpg
over the 23,000 mile test.)
Now, I don't know what kind of milage the regular Civic gets in
typical driving, but I guess it might be 35 mpg on a good day. If so,
the hybrid is 17 - 33% more efficient. How much of that do you think
can be attributed to tires?
>> Of course, any conversion from one kind of energy to another involves
>> inefficiencies. Merely listing them out says nothing about the
>> overall efficiency of the system.
>
>When they are non-existent in the original system, listing them becomes very
>important.
List them all you want, but they don't alter the real world reality
that the hybrid system increases efficiency as measured in mpg of
gasoline, the only energy source they use.
>> Honda did use regenerative braking of a sort on a Civic model about 15
>> years ago. The computer would only allow the alternator to supply
>> power when the vehicle was decelerating (or if the battery charge
>> dropped too low.) It's benefit was pretty small.
>
>So simple. They should've kept it.
You missed the part about the benefit being very small.
>> You seem to believe that everyone who buys a hybrid thinks he owns a
>> perpetual motion machine. The fact is that the performance boost is
>> only needed for a short time. Most car engines spend only 1% of their
>> working hours producing their rated horsepower. There is lots of
>> extra capacity for charging the batteries.
>
>This depends entirely on need. Some needs are serious and immediate. For
>example, if I've just exhausted the battery by getting to speed and jocking
>for position on an interstate, what happens if I need maneuvering power to
>avoid a potential accident situation?
To exhaust the battery you would have to have been driving like a
maniac for an extended period of time.
> In this case, today's hybrid is
>actually a safety liability. I'd be interested in know the source for your
>use of 1%.
Common sense. If I try to get maximum power out of my engine for more
than a minute at a time, the fuel shuts off because the speed has
reached 130 mph. What percent of the time do you spend driving with
your foot on the floor?
> You need to keep in mind that the 'lots of extra capacity for
>charging the batteries' consumes gasoline that would not be consumed in a
>non-hybrid vehicle.
But it is consuming it more efficiently and you will get it back when
the motor assists.
>> Other posters have listed numerous reasons why hybrid systems increase
>> efficiency. It could be all academic except that hybrid cars are at
>> the top of the chart for high-milage gasoline road cars.
>
>Other than quoting MPG figures, not really.
Do you have a better way of measuring the efficiency of a
gasoline-only powered vehicle.
>The only system that is a net +
>is regenerative braking and, truth be told, it's not that big a deal. The
>chart topping had much more to do with driving style & political posturing
>than science.
How does political posturing affect fuel efficiency? And what driving
style do I have to adopt to get 46 mpg out of my GS-R?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:49:20 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>> Steve Bigelow <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>>
>> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
>> which would seem to be 54MPG US.
>>
>> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>>
>> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
>> An Insight without the hybrid?
>
>There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the
>US.
Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out
of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight?
wrote:
>dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>> Steve Bigelow <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>>
>> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
>> which would seem to be 54MPG US.
>>
>> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>>
>> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
>> An Insight without the hybrid?
>
>There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the
>US.
Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out
of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:49:56 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>> How do they recharge it at night?
>>
>> They have retrofitted a line voltage charging system, an option
>> available only if you have a hybrid system to start with.
>> Manufacturers are considering adding this as standard equipment to
>> their hybrid vehicles.
>
>Which does nothing but move the pollution upstream and make it virtually
>impossible to accurately calculate MPG.
So let me get this straight. You keep whining that hybrids don't have
any energy source but gasoline, but when someone tells you about a
hybrid which does have a second energy source, you whine about that
too. If they got 5% of their energy from hydrocarbons emitted into
the air by vehicle refueling, would you complain that they were
stealing your gas?
wrote:
>>> How do they recharge it at night?
>>
>> They have retrofitted a line voltage charging system, an option
>> available only if you have a hybrid system to start with.
>> Manufacturers are considering adding this as standard equipment to
>> their hybrid vehicles.
>
>Which does nothing but move the pollution upstream and make it virtually
>impossible to accurately calculate MPG.
So let me get this straight. You keep whining that hybrids don't have
any energy source but gasoline, but when someone tells you about a
hybrid which does have a second energy source, you whine about that
too. If they got 5% of their energy from hydrocarbons emitted into
the air by vehicle refueling, would you complain that they were
stealing your gas?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tLudnUzJRulxHmjfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> FanJet wrote:
>>
>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the
>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the
>> Smart42 would make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
>
> im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
> "retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
> sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
> company importing it?
I think you'll have them next year.
Smarts are sold and serviced in Mercedes Benz dealerships, at least in
Ottawa. Smart Cars are a wholly owned subsidiary of MB. The first car sold
in 1998.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tLudnUzJRulxHmjfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> FanJet wrote:
>>
>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the
>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the
>> Smart42 would make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
>
> im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
> "retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
> sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
> company importing it?
Sweet Jesus,...I want this one!
http://www.motorsm.com/collection/ph...OADSTER_SL.jpg
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
In article <Sq2dnZDZi_j3c2jfRVn-jg@rogers.com>, "Steve Bigelow" <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tLudnUzJRulxHmjfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>> FanJet wrote:
>>>
>>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the
>>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the
>>> Smart42 would make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
>>
>> im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
>> "retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
>> sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
>> company importing it?
>
>I think you'll have them next year.
>Smarts are sold and serviced in Mercedes Benz dealerships, at least in
>Ottawa. Smart Cars are a wholly owned subsidiary of MB. The first car sold
>in 1998.
I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always
a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a
year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the
brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser
since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand.
BTW, the diesel Smart sold in Canada has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 sec!
>
>"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tLudnUzJRulxHmjfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>> FanJet wrote:
>>>
>>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the
>>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the
>>> Smart42 would make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
>>
>> im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
>> "retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
>> sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
>> company importing it?
>
>I think you'll have them next year.
>Smarts are sold and serviced in Mercedes Benz dealerships, at least in
>Ottawa. Smart Cars are a wholly owned subsidiary of MB. The first car sold
>in 1998.
I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always
a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a
year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the
brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser
since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand.
BTW, the diesel Smart sold in Canada has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 sec!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
"Dave" <dm@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rtmJe.5577$N93.940@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> In article <Sq2dnZDZi_j3c2jfRVn-jg@rogers.com>, "Steve Bigelow"
> <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:tLudnUzJRulxHmjfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>>> FanJet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like choice too. Let's bring the smart42 to the US! Considering the
>>>> odd popularity and re-sale value of the Mini-Cooper, I'd think the
>>>> Smart42 would make dealerships very wealthy indeed.
>>>
>>> im not too sure, but its worth a shot. the mini is based on an updated
>>> "retro" design, and backed by BMW. the smart has no history, and im not
>>> sure its even backed by daimler-chrysler in canada. isnt an independant
>>> company importing it?
>>
>>I think you'll have them next year.
>>Smarts are sold and serviced in Mercedes Benz dealerships, at least in
>>Ottawa. Smart Cars are a wholly owned subsidiary of MB. The first car sold
>>in 1998.
>
>
> I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always
> a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a
> year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the
> brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser
> since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand.
>
> BTW, the diesel Smart sold in Canada has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 sec!
Yep. And 95 a litre regular gas!
The can't keep them in stock.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
Steve Bigelow wrote:
> Sweet Jesus,...I want this one!
> http://www.motorsm.com/collection/ph...OADSTER_SL.jpg
Definitely cute, but it would be a royal PITA to keep the headlights
clear in heavy snow. Would need some sort of a cover, for sure. But then
not too many folks in snowy climates would go for a convertable, I guess.
> Sweet Jesus,...I want this one!
> http://www.motorsm.com/collection/ph...OADSTER_SL.jpg
Definitely cute, but it would be a royal PITA to keep the headlights
clear in heavy snow. Would need some sort of a cover, for sure. But then
not too many folks in snowy climates would go for a convertable, I guess.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MB's Schmmarrrt Kar, was: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
In <rtmJe.5577$N93.940@twister.nyroc.rr.com> dm@nospam.com (Dave) writes:
>I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always
>a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a
>year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the
>brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser
>since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand.
Otoh, there's at least one municipal fleet that's looking
at forcing the issue by purchasing a couple of hundred
of them.
No decision yet...
(keep in mind that 99% or so of city worker driving doesn't
need anything larger than the Schmarrrt Kar).
Oh.. and that lovable curmodgeon from CBS's "Sixty Minutes", Andy Rooney,
test drove around NYC a couple of months ago. I made a QuickTime version
of his clip and posted it at:
http://www.panix.com/~dannyb/video/schmart-car-cdr.mov
Note: it's about 16 megs in size... (which is larger
than the car...)
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>I'm all for the Smart being sold in the US. More choices is always
>a good thing in my book. But alas, DCX nixed the idea about half a
>year back. And it looks like the new CEO is less enamored to the
>brand than Shremp, who created it. It's been a big money loser
>since its inception. Rumors are that he'll shop the brand.
Otoh, there's at least one municipal fleet that's looking
at forcing the issue by purchasing a couple of hundred
of them.
No decision yet...
(keep in mind that 99% or so of city worker driving doesn't
need anything larger than the Schmarrrt Kar).
Oh.. and that lovable curmodgeon from CBS's "Sixty Minutes", Andy Rooney,
test drove around NYC a couple of months ago. I made a QuickTime version
of his clip and posted it at:
http://www.panix.com/~dannyb/video/schmart-car-cdr.mov
Note: it's about 16 megs in size... (which is larger
than the car...)
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:49:20 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Bigelow <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>>>
>>>Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
>>>which would seem to be 54MPG US.
>>>
>>>Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>>>
>>>What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
>>>An Insight without the hybrid?
>>
>>There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the
>>US.
>
>
> Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out
> of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight?
>
different strokes for different folks. isnt the smart supposed to be
cheaper? then theres people like me who dont have a 2-car garage and
dont drive much. id much rather have a smart and have room left over for
3 more motorcycles or scooters :)
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:49:20 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Bigelow <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
>>>
>>>Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
>>>which would seem to be 54MPG US.
>>>
>>>Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
>>>
>>>What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
>>>An Insight without the hybrid?
>>
>>There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the Smart in the
>>US.
>
>
> Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out
> of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight?
>
different strokes for different folks. isnt the smart supposed to be
cheaper? then theres people like me who dont have a 2-car garage and
dont drive much. id much rather have a smart and have room left over for
3 more motorcycles or scooters :)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
In article <FuAJe.428$nL3.27822@newshog.newsread.com>, FanJet27
@hotmail.com says...
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:49:20 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
> >>> Steve Bigelow <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
> >>>
> >>> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
> >>> which would seem to be 54MPG US.
> >>>
> >>> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
> >>>
> >>> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
> >>> An Insight without the hybrid?
> >>
> >> There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the
> >> Smart in the US.
> >
> > Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out
> > of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight?
>
> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets
> 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions.
The Smart as delivered in the USA will be a gasoline version.
Canadians will get the diesel version.
The EPA rating for the 2005 Insight M/T is 60/66, so 73 is a possiblity
with careful driving.
--Gene
@hotmail.com says...
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:49:20 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
> >>> Steve Bigelow <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How does it compare to the Smart fortwo?
> >>>
> >>> Some Canadians are citing 65mpg on the highway in the smartfortwo,
> >>> which would seem to be 54MPG US.
> >>>
> >>> Canadians are reporting 88MPG highway with the Insight (73 US MPG).
> >>>
> >>> What would a smart car get with a hybrid option?
> >>> An Insight without the hybrid?
> >>
> >> There's no need for a hybrid option but there is a need for the
> >> Smart in the US.
> >
> > Why is there a need for the Smart when you can get better milage out
> > of the gasoline-as-the-onlly-energy-source Insight?
>
> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets
> 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions.
The Smart as delivered in the USA will be a gasoline version.
Canadians will get the diesel version.
The EPA rating for the 2005 Insight M/T is 60/66, so 73 is a possiblity
with careful driving.
--Gene
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d60a9f7587ec9e19896a1@newsgroups.comcast .net...
> The Smart as delivered in the USA will be a gasoline version.
> Canadians will get the diesel version.
Canadians _have_ the diesel version.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets
> 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions.
That belies the "only source of energy" that you repeat frequently. It's
oil, not diesel or gasoline, for the Smart and most other cars.
I picked posted results for each because that would seem to be the folks
from the hyper-miler class, squeezing miles out of their barrel of oil.
I stayed with Canadian posts, so I could keep the Smart in context.
There are hypermilers in the US that report 90MPG with the Insight.
The Smart is estimated at 51/61 USMPG (and 19.8 seconds 0-60).
The Insight is rated at 60/71 USMPG (and 10.6 seconds 0-60).
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline and it's very unlikely the Insight gets
> 73 US MPG irrespective of conditions.
That belies the "only source of energy" that you repeat frequently. It's
oil, not diesel or gasoline, for the Smart and most other cars.
I picked posted results for each because that would seem to be the folks
from the hyper-miler class, squeezing miles out of their barrel of oil.
I stayed with Canadian posts, so I could keep the Smart in context.
There are hypermilers in the US that report 90MPG with the Insight.
The Smart is estimated at 51/61 USMPG (and 19.8 seconds 0-60).
The Insight is rated at 60/71 USMPG (and 10.6 seconds 0-60).
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline
The Dark Side of Diesel:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/a...re=3228&text=N
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
> The Smart doesn't consume gasoline
The Dark Side of Diesel:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/a...re=3228&text=N
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
In article <dd81qu$u4o$3@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
> FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline
>
> The Dark Side of Diesel:
> http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/a...re=3228&text=N
Hello,
I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a
picture of the "Smart" vehicle?
I wanted to comment on those people that mentioned that want to develop a
system where they can easily charge the batteries in their Hybrid vehicle.
Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the
batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical
utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn
more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they
might not be saving any money in the long run.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
> FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The Smart doesn't consume gasoline
>
> The Dark Side of Diesel:
> http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/a...re=3228&text=N
Hello,
I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a
picture of the "Smart" vehicle?
I wanted to comment on those people that mentioned that want to develop a
system where they can easily charge the batteries in their Hybrid vehicle.
Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the
batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical
utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn
more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they
might not be saving any money in the long run.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
Jason <jason@nospam.com> wrote:
> I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a
> picture of the "Smart" vehicle?
http://www.threepointmotors.com/smart/index.asp is a Canadian Dealer.
> Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the
> batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical
> utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn
> more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they
> might not be saving any money in the long run.
This is the subject of "well to wheel" comparisons. How much does it help,
if any, to move the generation of the power from one place to another,
including the inefficiencies in transport.
Time of day metering might be mandatory for an Electric car owner, charging
up at night.
Solar power could be used for charging the electric vehicle, in a home
setup.
Nuclear/Geothermal/Hydro could be the source of the electricity, reducing
the need for non-renewable and foreign resources.
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
> I might have missed it but does anyone know of a website where I can see a
> picture of the "Smart" vehicle?
http://www.threepointmotors.com/smart/index.asp is a Canadian Dealer.
> Do other people agree or disagree that those people that charge the
> batteries that they might end up getting more MPG but their electrical
> utility bills will be higher and the utility companies will have to burn
> more oil to run their generators. In other words, in the long run--they
> might not be saving any money in the long run.
This is the subject of "well to wheel" comparisons. How much does it help,
if any, to move the generation of the power from one place to another,
including the inefficiencies in transport.
Time of day metering might be mandatory for an Electric car owner, charging
up at night.
Solar power could be used for charging the electric vehicle, in a home
setup.
Nuclear/Geothermal/Hydro could be the source of the electricity, reducing
the need for non-renewable and foreign resources.
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles
Jason wrote:
> In article <dd81qu$u4o$3@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>
>>FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The Smart doesn't consume gasoline
>>
>>The Dark Side of Diesel:
>>http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/a...re=3228&text=N
As a historian I would remind the NG that the ICE was seen as a clean
alternative to horse power and the tons of manure the horses left on
city streets every day. Manure was sticky mud when wet and choking
coulds of dust when dry.
> In article <dd81qu$u4o$3@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>
>>FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The Smart doesn't consume gasoline
>>
>>The Dark Side of Diesel:
>>http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/faq/a...re=3228&text=N
As a historian I would remind the NG that the ICE was seen as a clean
alternative to horse power and the tons of manure the horses left on
city streets every day. Manure was sticky mud when wet and choking
coulds of dust when dry.