"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

I don't believe anything from magazines. The fact that one says 21mpg
and the other 55mpg should ring alarm bells.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005..._plugin_p.html

102mpg, averages over 60mpg.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I don't really believe that he actually has one of these Toyota
Priapisms. More likely he's using Autocar as a wank mag or something.

If only. He might have learnt something.
Although Autocar saw its possible
merits they also showed it up for the con it is,

snip the idiot

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005..._plugin_p.html

102mpg. Averages of over 60mpg. An this fool believes a third rate mag.
And he still believes them. Saddo, a saddo.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Maybe I should have a Rover. What image. BTW, at the Hollywood Oscars
many stars turned up in the a Prius.
And drive a Range Rover every other day...

They rave over them. Dustin
Hoffman was first with the Lexus hybrid. People flock all around me,
all the time, then I point to my car and cream.

No surprise there then. But hasn't your analyst tried to get you off this
sexual fixation with cars?

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
And, it only costs twice as much as equivalent small cars in
depreciation and insurance--group 8 compared to group 4. Interesting to
see the fleet rental rates for the new CVT Prius are now exceeding those
of many X type Jags! Poor residuals seem to be indicated. Presumably,
they had to go to CVT as the old gearbox had problems we weren't told
about! Like my friends Lexus which jumped off the road intermittently,
and was repurchased by Toyota IIUC. I wonder what the chances are of
getting hold of a new gearbox in six years time?

They need the CVT when in petrol mode because of the 'unusual' torque
characteristics of the engine.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:
Depreciates better than average.

So that is why the fleet rental rates are higher than a rapidly
depreciating Jaguar?!!!

Silly boy, you have been told, you can't get hold of them.

A waiting list to buy one.

There's a much longer waiting list to buy a Morgan and it hardly
depreciates at all over 20 years!

What is the rental on that then? Duh! you are not that bright are you?

"Dave Plowman (News)" supidly said in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
There is a limit to how much energy can be transferred in a reasonable
time, so it won't be worthwhile going to a charging station in the way
we go to a petrol station today.

I was reading that large capacitors charged overnight could store energy
to zap batteries. I don't how much this is feasible.

So you charge up one

You are confussed. Get it sorted.

snip babble

"Dave Plowman (News)" foamed at the mouth in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Toshiba may be a very credible
company, but even they can't defy the
laws of physics.

Have you told them they are wrong?

No, because they are not. Their article is about charging a 500mAH
battery in one minute. This can be done quite easily.

You were trying to extrapolate this into being able to use the same
technology in the same way with a one minute charge in a full sized
car without thinking about the implications.

Isn't that typical

Snip made up things.

snip foaming at the mouth

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

A little bit of easily obtainable research will show that even a modest
town car will approach or even exceed 1G when braking from 30 mph if
required to do so, but even the most powerful can't approach this in
acceleration. So to provide motor/generators for each wheel which could
provide this sort of retardation would be neither practical or cost
effective.

Not only that, even if you have a 30kW motor, and you can arrange to
capture all the regen energy from breaking at maximum motor speed (i.e.
unlikely), how long will it take to come to rest at max braking? Under 5
secs that is for sure. How much extra charge can you get in your battery
- 0.8Ah best case!

Most of the energy you have put into accelerating you big pile of
batteries has been lost to heat and air resistance (proportional to the
third power of the velocity!). So even capturing all the available enegy
from the regenerative breaking you will get back a small fraction of
what you put in.

On top of which 30kW of breaking (the best you could hope for from the
motor) is useless for anything other than gentle breaking. For real
world useful breaking you will need to use the discs, and hence end up
loosing most of your kinetic energy as heat.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Wrong again. Autocars is third rate magi that said the Prius did 21mpg.
Yes, that is what they said. The lunatic then believed them.

I don't believe anything from magazines. The fact that one says 21mpg
and the other 55mpg should ring alarm bells. Given that situation, I
would be looking for the magazine giving the more favourable numbers
to justify itself rather than the one giving the less favourable
numbers to admit a mistake. In that respect I am from Missouri.

Andy, I'd suggest you get a copy of Autocar and examine the way they
conduct road tests. It's light years ahead of any other in this country.
They don't accept makers figures and simply pass them on as true, but
conduct their own. They check speedos and mileometers for accuracy. Brakes
for maximum efficiency, etc.

The 23 mpg was the overall result of an about 1000 mile test which also
included performance testing - top speed and maximum acceleration. But
then they do that with every car. And similar sized and performance
vehicles just aren't as bad. Now of course the top speed of near any
vehicle can't be legally used in this country, but acceleration up to the
maximum allowed and hill climbing ability etc are of relevance.

If another magazine got 55 mpg overall from this car, it means they
never drove it fast or far. And under those conditions, plenty cars of
the same size and half the price would have done as well or better.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Matt wrote:
The inescapable fact that Toyota themselves have submitted that it has
a CVT in their EU type approval documentation means that it HAS a CVT.
Either that or Toyota are lying and you are the greatest poster /
****wit / plumbing merchant counter assistant in the world ever.

Toyota ain't lying. ;-)

But if John says white is black, who are we to disagree?

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Actually that's too personal and he will never reply. Instead of that
Drivel, give us the VIN alphanumeric sequence less the last 5 digits
and we might start to believe you.

Oh and while you are at it tell us who built your DB6 engine and the
last digit of the engine number.

John never gives proof of any of his claims. He's one of the biggest
frauds on the newsgroups.

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Prius has the engine and electric motor power
simultaneously to elinminate a gearbox/CVT.

Does it transfer power from its engine/motor to the wheels?

Yes - therefore it has a transmission. Without one it would not move.

Is the transfer ratio fixed, variable in steps, or continuously variable?

Continuous - therefore by definition it has CVT.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Not available yet. And the Prius is still the best car in the world.

Can't see how, its dog slow.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
If only. He might have learnt something. Although Autocar saw its
possible merits they also showed it up for the con it is with dreadful
fuel consumption if driven hard.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005..._plugin_p.html

Green car congress? You cannot be serious. Go and hug a few trees.

102mpg. Averages of over 60mpg. An this fool believes a third rate mag.
And he still believes them. Saddo, a saddo.

So when are you having your one modified as they've done?

And quoting MPG without an average speed is about as meaningless as your
sad little life.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Another one....and he has a Rover too. Two goons with Rovers. Sad isn't
it.

What about the Austin Rover Mini you claimed to have?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

To get regen you have to moving, to get moving you
consume energy, you recoup *some* energy but not much. It will reduce
the overall emmissions but not by much.


Quite a bit. More if the have the new Toshiba battery.

Very little in fact. The maximum output from the motor is tiny compared
to the braking power required. So even capturing all of it you are not
much better off.


It can be done. It will take all brake regen, which is great point. And
faster charging is available, to what the charging system can give.

Andy has already given you a much more practical answer to charging. You
go to a fuel station for a battery swap.

Ok, now the Toshiba battery *could* work
but your generator could never put the energy
in fast enough.


It can as Toshiba say 80-90% od charge in 1 minute.

For a cell phone battery. For a car you can't deliver the power fast
enough - as we have shown.

I repeat: Also compressing air and using it to propel via an air motor.

You ever used a compressor with a 50L receiver? Thought not. See how
long that will run an air motor of any useful output.

(clue: be prepared to walk back from the end of the street)

In Californai they get 135mpg, and charging from cheap mains lecky.

How much is a gallon (US) of lecky these days?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Why does it need a second stage if the motor/battery can use it all?


Oh I give up with this one. Do you have a Rover?

Lets make it simple for you.

You can't get any more electrical power out of motor regen, than you can
get mechanical power out of the same motor on maximum electrical power
input.

A cars braking power will exceed its motive power by probably an order
of magnitude.

Therefore the amount of regen energy reclaimable (with 100% efficient
collection of said energy) is at best a tenth of what you put in.

Worth having? Sure.

Small beer none the less.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dinky"

LOL


You LOL'd at that? No wonder you have Rover.

Ah, but it was *so* funny and probably true....

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

T i m wrote:

Certainly wouldn't be CORGI, would it? ;-)

More likely Tonka.. seems fitting.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is clear you are very silly and a waste of time.

Two 22mm ball valves and a basin wrench please....


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

No. Discourage the car. It is clogging the whole country up.

How can that be? I thought we only used 7.5% of it?

A roll of PTFE and a sink plunger please...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Matt" wrote in message
.. .
"Doctor Evil" wrote:

Reclaiming near 100% of brake energy is a great advantage.

How near?

How near do you want it?

Nearer to 100% than Toyota claim it is. But, as you posted
"Reclaiming near 100% of brake energy" you clearly don't have a clue
to the true figure as its NOWHERE near 100% is it Drivel?


--

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

It is clear you are very silly and a waste of time.

It is clear you have not, nor have ever owned a DB6, nor it would seem
do you own a Prius. Sad but true. You are beyond doubt a legend in
your own lunchtime being a third rate plumbing merchant counter
assistant with a gold star in leaflet reading who never even gets to
drive the company van.

Now get back to work and sell some more copper tanks to make me even
richer.
--

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:25:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
Yes. They'll be wonderful when we get renewable electricity. Which will
probably be never. And burning a fossil fuel in a power station to
charge *any* battery is far less efficient than using that fuel
directly to power the vehicle.
snip

A COGAS system (Gas turbine with waste heat recovery) will have an
efficiency slightly better than 50%. A slow speed diesel with waste
heat recovery also will exceed 50% efficiency. Steam turbine system
that provide the bulk of power have efficiencies closer to 30%.

Yes. And add in transmission losses via the grid, etc, then the much
higher losses involved in actually charging any battery. Add in the costs
of any high tech battery throughout its likely life, and it makes far more
sense to use that fuel directly - apart from any localised emissions issue.

Nevertheless power generated with machines that are 50% efficient
using low grade fuel (heavy oil) is less 'expensive' than power from
an IC engine fitted to an automobile. I am assuming that the
emissions from the machines at central power stations are
appropriately treated.

Electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly overall with
respect to emissions than IC powered vehicles, however, whether they
are more economically viable, when all factors are taken into
consideration, is clearly open to debate. The economics/costs
associated with pollution are beyond me but are clearly very real.

The exchanges in this thread on what is a serious issue is would not
do credit to a ten year old.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
(The CAT on my car works so well you can't measure the pollutants at an
MOT test station.)

But they don't measure CO2 which is the major greenhouse gas. And burning
any fossil fuel produces this.

No but like stated elsewhere its better to burn the fuel in the car than in
a powerstation and then convert it to something else to burn in the car.

So we have this group of people promoting less energy efficient means of
powering cars because they choose to ignore where the original energy comes
from.

If we had loads of nuclear power spare or lots of spare windpower it may be
different but for now it just makes things worse.

"Edward W. Thompson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:25:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
Yes. They'll be wonderful when we get renewable electricity. Which
will
probably be never. And burning a fossil fuel in a power station to
charge *any* battery is far less efficient than using that fuel
directly to power the vehicle.
snip

A COGAS system (Gas turbine with waste heat recovery) will have an
efficiency slightly better than 50%. A slow speed diesel with waste
heat recovery also will exceed 50% efficiency. Steam turbine system
that provide the bulk of power have efficiencies closer to 30%.

Yes. And add in transmission losses via the grid, etc, then the much
higher losses involved in actually charging any battery. Add in the costs
of any high tech battery throughout its likely life, and it makes far
more
sense to use that fuel directly - apart from any localised emissions
issue.

Nevertheless power generated with machines that are 50% efficient
using low grade fuel (heavy oil) is less 'expensive' than power from
an IC engine fitted to an automobile. I am assuming that the
emissions from the machines at central power stations are
appropriately treated.

Electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly overall with
respect to emissions than IC powered vehicles, however, whether they
are more economically viable, when all factors are taken into
consideration, is clearly open to debate. The economics/costs
associated with pollution are beyond me but are clearly very real.

The exchanges in this thread on what is a serious issue is would not
do credit to a ten year old.

I agree.

"Matt" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

It is clear you are very silly and a waste of time.

It is clear you have not,
nor have ever owned a DB6,

The jealously. Mattyboy, you are a bitch!

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

No. Discourage the car. It is clogging the whole country up.

How can that be? I thought we only used 7.5% of it?

It clogs up the 7.5% Boy are you dumb.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dinky"

LOL


You LOL'd at that? No wonder you have Rover.

Ah, but it was *so* funny and probably true....

It was funny? I'm glad I don't drive a Rover. Or wear an anorak.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

To get regen you have to moving, to get moving you
consume energy, you recoup *some* energy but not much. It will reduce
the overall emmissions but not by much.


Quite a bit. More if the have the new Toshiba battery.

Very little in fact. The maximum output from the motor is tiny compared
to the braking power required. So even capturing all of it you are not
much better off.

Stop making things up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Wrong again. Autocars is third rate magi that said the Prius did
21mpg.
Yes, that is what they said. The lunatic then believed them.

I don't believe anything from magazines. The fact that one says 21mpg
and the other 55mpg should ring alarm bells. Given that situation, I
would be looking for the magazine giving the more favourable numbers
to justify itself rather than the one giving the less favourable
numbers to admit a mistake. In that respect I am from Missouri.

Andy, I'd suggest you get
a copy of Autocar and examine the way they
conduct road tests.

I know disgusting. The Clarkson way of motors. Oh it must go 110mph at all
times. Time for the medication, make sure you don't spit it out.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

If another magazine got 55 mpg overall from this car,

Over 65mpg.!!!!!

"Dave Plowman (News)" confusingly wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt stupidly wrote:

The inescapable fact that Toyota themselves have submitted that it has
a CVT in their EU type approval documentation means that it HAS a CVT.
Either that or Toyota are lying and you are the greatest poster /
****wit / plumbing merchant counter assistant in the world ever.

Toyota ain't lying. ;-)

It doesn't have a CVT. Look on the web, The design of the simple powertrain
is clearly beyond your comprehension. There is no CVT. They call it a CVT
because the average punter would not understand they do not have a gearbox.
A car is gotta 'ave a gearbox guv, Duh!!!

What they do is simultaneously apply the power of the engine and the
electric motor to eliminate a gearbox. Two power sources. A CVT is between
the power source and the drive wheels, this has TWO power sources applied at
the same time - no CVT. Now that has thrown your little mind.

One of the prime reasons I bought the Prius was because there was no
gearbox; the cars is simpler than normal cars. The cars is super smooth to
drive because of the lack of a gearbox. Alos when the cars ages, no
transmisison thrash. The engine is only started at optimum speed and run at
optium conditions, prolonging wear. When this car is 10 years old it will
still run and sound like a new one, as the waer factor is slight. I know of
no 10 years old car, Merc or otherwise, that sounds and feels new.

The Toyota transmission won all the top technical and innovation awards
world-wide and most makes have taken up licenses and will use it in their
hybrids. Within the next 9 months all major makers will have hybrid models.
Because they are the business my boy. Mitsubishi are to roll out only
electric EVs. The IC engine is on its last legs and will disappear sooner
than you think.

"Dave Plowman (News)" foamed at the mouth in message
...
In article ,
Matt stupidly wrote:
Actually that's too personal and he will never reply. Instead of that
Drivel, give us the VIN alphanumeric sequence less the last 5 digits
and we might start to believe you.

Oh and while you are at it tell us who built your DB6 engine and the
last digit of the engine number.

I bet you wished you had a DB6 and a Prius. I am so trendy you know.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Prius has the engine and electric motor power
simultaneously to elinminate a gearbox/CVT.

Does it transfer power from its
engine/motor to the wheels?

Yep

Yes - therefore it has a transmission.
Without one it would not move.

But no gearbox or CVT with pullies and belts.

Is the transfer ratio fixed,
variable in steps, or continuously variable?

There is one gear that is all. A gearbox/CVT on other cars is between the
power sources and the wheels. This has TWO power sources, so no CVT. It
applies power from the engine and electric motor simultaneously. The is
process eliminates the need for a gearbox/CVT. See the other post. A link
was given showing an animation of how it works, with another giving the
explanation.

Continuous - therefore by definition it has CVT.

See above.

Gearboxes are there to eliminate the inadequacies of the 4-stroke cycle.
Elecric cars don't need gearboxes if the motoris sized properly. You just
applly the right power to the wheels and no problem. By applying the
power/torque to the wheels correctly you don't need a gearbox, and that is
what Toyota has done. The most advanced car in the world, and yet simpler
than all the others.

Now you know.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Not available yet. And the Prius is still the best car in the world.

Can't see how, its dog slow.

It is not slow. It can do 100mph, which is way far above the max speed
limit.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Another one....and he has a Rover too. Two goons with Rovers. Sad
isn't
it.

What about the Austin Rover Mini you claimed to have?

The Cooper is BMC. 1966, same year as the DB6

"Matt" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Matt" stupidly in message
.. .
"Doctor Evil" wrote:

Reclaiming near 100% of brake energy is a great advantage.

How near?

How near do you want it?

Nearer to 100%

You are confused, as you are comparing an actual car and what IS achievable.
Get therapy.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:56:53 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" confusingly wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt stupidly wrote:

The inescapable fact that Toyota themselves have submitted that it has
a CVT in their EU type approval documentation means that it HAS a CVT.
Either that or Toyota are lying and you are the greatest poster /
****wit / plumbing merchant counter assistant in the world ever.

Toyota ain't lying. ;-)

It doesn't have a CVT. Look on the web,

Just did:
Transmissions: Continuously Variable
http://tinyurl.com/8rhhn

As mentioned elsewhere it had to be 'CV' *because* the engine runs at
several pre set rev ranges to get the best efficiency / emmissions for
a specific load.

The IC engine is on its last legs and will disappear sooner
than you think.

Ooops, you will have an EV then won't you??

"Hybrid" = IC Engine + Electric motor

You said you knew what you were talking about?

T i m

p.s. "Plastic multi-function steering wheel with tilt adjustment"

You got yours from Toys R Us didn't you? Beep beep

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
(The CAT on my car works so well you can't measure the pollutants at an
MOT test station.)

But they don't measure CO2 which is the major greenhouse gas. And
burning
any fossil fuel produces this.

No but like stated elsewhere its better to burn the fuel in the car than
in
a powerstation and then convert it to something else to burn in the car.

NO. The IC engine is hopelessly inefficient. The Stirling is twice the
efficiency on average, and there are ongoing experiments with the Stirling
and the Toyota hybrid transmission. That will throw the mpg up by about
100%. Have longer range batteries charged from the grid overnight as well
as on-board, and 200mpg is achievable. Stirling engines are used in micro
CHP boilers because they are far superior to the IC engine.