On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:53:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:28:59 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:


Awl --

I thought the subthread with the semi-asstute-but-still-deluded
Whoyakidding
should get its own thread, cuz it's a really important topic, imo butt
another facet of Le Pubic's Global Ass****ing. .

===============================

Moi:

there are plenty of
RCMers/AMCers/AHRers who could build a "servicable" (ie, not luxurious)
electric car. One even built one already.

And I never laid claim to that idea being *practical* -- I simply
mentioned
it metaphorically


Whoyakidding:

Well if we're only limited metaphorically then why stop at EVs? Might
as well say we could all build folding 12V jetpacks to carry in our
submarines.

i if you will, to make the point that the BigfuknAuto (and
gummint) is making much ado about sumpn fundamentally simple. If you
want
10 fukn air bags and teleporting navigation, then yeah, that might be
tough
for an RCMer, but if you want a vehicle that can go from point A to
point
B
real cheap, then plenty here could do it.

Not for anything marketable there isn't.

And herein lies the crux of the issue, elaborated on below, after clearing
up butt another of 'Kidding's delusions.


Certainly not Gunner or any
of the others with similar "virtual" qualifications. Now if you're
talking about glorified gocarts or whatever, then I'd have to see the
details. If it's axles attached with bent over nails etc, then OK. If
it's lithium batteries and hub motors and crash certification, then
you need to lay off whatever you're smoking. If it's something in the
middle, like a conversion with lead acid batteries, then what's the
holdup? Build it already and show GM what a bunch of chumps they are.

O please, cut the strawman bull****.....


And Big Auto apparently CANNOT do it -- or won't -- economically,

Real companies build what the market will buy. The market has dictated
safety cocoons, power everything, long warranties, etc. Regardless,
unless you can show that eliminating airbags is cost effective for
society overall, then it's a stupid point to harp on. The small
percentage of buyers who'd opt out of airbags if they could are
probably the most likely to run up a ridiculous hospital bill after a
minor crash. You need to wake up to the reality that the Gunners of
the world merely sign up for vehicle insurance. They don't actually
keep it current and there are increasing numbers of drivers without
coverage. Forcing air bags on them saves the rest us a ****ing
fortune.

A bit of a digression, but an important one, that eventually also comes
full
circle to The Design Ante:

A likely false assertion. The cost of medical care isn't
"incremental"
on a case-by-case basis.
The fact that hospitals then BILL us up the ass for procedures has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COSTS ACTUALLY INCURRED BY SED HOSPITAL.
Precisely because of the notion of fixed vs. variable costs.
Medical """costs""" are a TOTAL CONJOB, being used to rip off the whole of
our economy, and eviscerate the finances of the working class.
And the "real" medical costs that DO exist are ALSO a victim of The Design
Ante, where MILLIONS are spent on machines to simply displace a few
workers.

But NOW, the hospital is now that machine mfr's BITCH, forever. Pay to
fix
the machine, mutha****a, or watch the hospital shut down. And pay
exhorbitantly. And pay forever. And **** the displaced employees who
would
NOT have broken down.... mebbe a sick day here and there.... lol

And you can surmise this from their bull**** billing. I was given a
$7,000
dental bill, by accident. That same bill went to my insurance company --
$239.00. Hilarious, eh?
Now, had I not been covered, those mutha****as would in fact be dunning me
for $7,000.
Oh, our COSTS, our COSTS..... yeah, right.....



the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

That is a stupid claim that you won't support with anything other than
more stupid claims.

Now for the crux of the Design Ante:

That is a *transparently OBVIOUS* claim to ANYONE who has removed -- or
made -- a crankshaft, fergodsakes.
Or taken apart a transmission. You ever take apart a transmission?????
If
you have, and you still don't see the obviousness of this assertion, then
you need much more detox than I originally thought.

Now, sure, there's some subtler technology, as well, such as in battery
chemistry, and I hope yer not so 'luded up as to think I was talking about
RCMers mixing their own battery paste.
So, what, the Volt is $5000 for the car, and $40,000 for the
batteries????????

From your previous above points, here's what you and your
gummint-fellating
ilk don't get.

In 1974, half the fukn world was driving around in a 42 or 54 hp
air-cooled
2,000# beetle, that did perfectly fine in an era when 55 mph signs existed
only on windy side-roads. So what happened?

Well, assholes like you decided that their fukn Goth-to-be ****ty li'l
babies needed BABY-ON-BOARD signs in every fukn car window in Merka, with
35
cupholdes, 10 airbags, and 64 bit navigation -- cuz, I can only surmise,
Le
Pubic is too fukn stupid to read a printed fuknMAP -- and the "ante of
bull**** engineering" went stratospheric, so that, in a number of senses,
you are right.
RCMers -- NOR ANYONE ELSE -- couldn't even think about bringing such
gratuitously technology-inflated products to market.

Fuuuuuck, John Z DELOREAN couldn't bring his product to
market!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An assertion which you conveniently ig'd.
How Tesla finagled it, idk, but, hey, timing (and graft) is
everything......

So you tell me, O Mighty DeeZine Sage and Manufacturing Wizard:

Exactly WHY was the 1974 54 hp beetle good enough then -- and good
enough
for 1/2 the driving world -- but it's **** now?
Can you imagine the mpg of that car, with a decent motor in it? I'm sure
we'd be talking 70 mpg with a pure ICE, and much higher with any
hybridization.

Well, I'll tell you why the 1974 Beetle is not good enough for you or
anyone
else now, in 2013.

Because you and Le Pubic have been so simultaneously mind****ed AND
ass****ed, when you sit down for your morning cereal, you don't know
whether
to insert the spoonfuls of cereal in your mouth, or in your ass.
The ambivalent proly alternate. Hey, why not??



Altho the Prius c is starting to get there.

As far as Wrangler peeple being able to afford a volt, why not stick
Mercedes in there, as well?

Why don't YOU admit that neither the price nor the tech is the reason
you're not buying an EV. What you're really after is a PITS Mark 1.
Those are already available at www.pieinthesky.com.

Oh, so yer a psychoANAList now??
And why, *exactly*, am I not buying an EV????

Hmmmm, could it be cuz I already got two cars??????? AND that I drive
MUCH
less than the avg person?
Heh, NYC subways, donchaknow...... all-electric subways, I might add....
lol.
Could it be that I'm just a li'l tapped right now, from the Haas GR510
that's coming in two weeks?? AND my bustid effing Fadal?? Hmmmmm??????

If I could justify it in any way, I'd buy the Volt in a HEARTBEAT.
Which should have been clear to even the krw assholes leaving their mouse
droppings in the previous thread.

I'm going to restart that thread with some new calcs, which will basically
show that on a MPG basis, the Volt makes sense in only selected low-kWhr
rate areas. And even then, it will have a miserably long ROI compared to
budget ICE cars, like the Fit, Versa, Yaris, others. KBB is fulla**** in
their cost-to-own analysis.

In high kWhr areas, the Volt will be just another semi-decently -- and
overpriced -- efficient ICE car.
'tis what 'tis.

I could go on about the Ante of Design, and how the hundreds of millions
of
people who start the digestion prcess via their anuses make life REALLY
difficult for people who are still lucid enough to put the cereal spoon in
their mouths, but that's its own thread as well.

Look up Monster Cables (via Radio Shack), to see how self-absorbed
audiophiles were conned into believing that gold plated RCA-to-RCA cables,
with fancy insulation, at $100 per pair, would give them better
fidelity --
vs. the 49c generic cables -- just as a start.

Then Donny Deutsch, on his bull**** Big Idea, featured dat ripoff conman
as
a Great Entreepreeneer.....
**** Radio Shack, **** Monster Cable, **** dat womanizing but still a
closeted fagit Donny Deutsch.


Until a few years ago, many, if not most, EVs were home-built. A
popular one was a VW Rabbit with 18 lead-acid batteries and a surplus
series-wound DC motor ($4,000 used and rebuilt from an EV supplier),
with several alternative speed controllers (usually choppers) and a
standard, manual transmission.

There was one in my town in the late '80s. A retired landscaper built
it. He said he had a 20-mile range, which was about twice what he
actually used.

I never rode in it but I was following behind him in town a couple of
times. It seemed to accelerate just fine.

One of the most advanced EVs around, maybe six or eight years ago, was
a home-built, converted Honda CRX. It had a big bank of small
lithium-ion batteries, like the Tesla, and (this is what made it so
advanced) a really large bank of supercaps. They were for acceleration
and hill climbing, which was spectacular. The guy who built it had a
strong EE background.

Like Gummer??


Basic, lead-acid homebuilts are simple. You could (and maybe you still
can) buy everything in a kit, for VW Rabbits and Golfs, for less than
$10,000.

And even that is a bit of a pill!
At 30 mpg gas only, that's 13c/mi, with $4 gas.
Suppose the electric cost is 5c/mi. If I've calc'd correckly, you'd have to
drive 125,000 miles to break even. At least.

But all you need to service it is some carbon brushes and a squirt can
of spindle oil. Oh, you'll need brakes and tires.




They aren't going to satisfy any market except the market of
enthusiasts, but they're completely practical if you just need a
commuter for short hops. That's how most cars in this country are
used, anyway.

Except for mall sprawl.
And the hapless PA peeple driving to work in NYC everyday.

They aren't hapless. They're hopeless. My former neighbor moved to the
Poconos and commuted to One Penn Plaza. It helped that he was CEO of a
chemical company and had a private garage under his office.

Heh, southern NJ to NYC is no joke either.

You have to be truly crazy to commute to NYC by car from any place
south of Toms River. That is, even more crazy than anyone commuting to
NYC from NJ by car for any reason.


But, you make my point (I think) that EVs need not be fuknRocket Science....
never mind $45,000 rocket science.

But Ed, earlier you said charging batteries was 97% efficient.

I wasn't aware that I said that, but that is the quoted figure for
lithium-ion. For lead-acid, it's around 50%.

I've read different -- much different -- and the "proof" would seem to be
the extensive ventilation or outright cooling these Li batts need, during
operation AND charging. This heat would seem to be almost analogous to the
waste heat of IC engines!!! Mebbe it could be used to heat the cabin, in
winter?? LOL

I too thought batt charging was super effic, but not with batts producing so
much heat they gotta be cooled!

I suspect that faster charging results in more IR^2 loss. The 97%
figure may be for a slow charge. That doesn';t sound right, though;
the amp-hours should be the same...oh, nuts, I'm not doing any more
thinking. I did that last night figuring out how much high explosive
Gunner needed to go 264 mph. d8-)

'Don't know, but it's something that would be better to research than
to speculate about here.

--
Ed Huntress