"T i m" wrote in message
...
On 25 Nov 2005 04:41:19 -0800, wrote:
T i m wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:08:15 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:00:20 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
through haze of senile flatulence wrote:

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this
week

There's nothing wrong with the concept, we just need better batteries.

'Any' battery that needs charging, unless charged environmentally
friendlylyly simply moves the pollution / problem elsewhere .. hence
'flawed' ...

A hydrid car that only charges it's batteries via energy initially
input from an IC engine (that should cover the 'regen braking' fans)
is an IC engined powered car. If it's charged from the 'mains' (in the

AIUI the point is that it is (or can be) a more efficient IC engine
powered car since the IC engine can always be run under the most fuel
efficient conditions instead of being geared to the road wheels.

Oh, indeed, and there is no question that different transmissions have
different efficiencies (and why a bicycle has 21 gears when it only
(typically) has a top speed of 20 mph .. it's because the 'engine' is
so low powered and has a restricted rev range?) 'and' that running IC
(and other) engines at specific rev ranges / temperatures allows
better efficiencies.

However, I believe, with all of the above, we are still 'w a y' off
them providing much of an avantage, compared with the better end of
todays more traditional offerings .. all things considered?

There is much ill-informed botty talk above. A hell of a lot of it.