Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week
including owner's views. Far too long to quote here - it's several pages -
and it's not on the website. So anyone interested will just have to buy
it. ;-)

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

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

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

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week

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

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:00:20 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week

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

Which are here. It is matter of getting production up and the price down.

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)"
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
UK) then it's a gas / oil powered car ..

I own several (pure) electric vehicles and they are certianly not the
solution to the problem. Hybrid'ing simply increases the range /
performance it does not provide a solution (even with a 'synergy
drive' lol) or hasn't yet (when hybrids can do many more mpg than
many 'stock' cars today then we might be getting somewhere).

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. How warm do you have to keep the garage for your hybrid /
electric car in the winter (to reduce cold battery capacity loss ..)
and where does that heating energy come from? ;-)

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)"
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.

MBQ

wrote in message
oups.com...

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)"
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.

Yet, and that they do. The hybrid is regarded as a stop-gap before fuel
cells come in. Battery technology have leaped and some Prius cars with
larger battery packs are getting 130mpg. So, this may push the fuel cell
cars back further. Then put on a super smooth and quiet Stirling engine
instead of the IC and matters are even better. The best is yet to come.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Yet, and that they do. The hybrid is regarded as a stop-gap before fuel
cells come in. Battery technology have leaped and some Prius cars with
larger battery packs are getting 130mpg.

Stop telling lies, dribble.

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

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

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:58:08 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Battery technology have leaped and some Prius cars with
larger battery packs are getting 130mpg.

miles per gallon of what?


--

In article .com,
wrote:
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.

Only while there's some battery charge. Once that is exhausted, the petrol
engine is effectively driving the wheels direct, but via a generator and
electric motor or some form of split drive. Hence the poor consumption
under those conditions.

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article .com,
wrote:

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.

Only

** snip lots of botty talk **

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:
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.

Only while there's some battery charge. Once that is exhausted, the petrol
engine is effectively driving the wheels direct, but via a generator and
electric motor or some form of split drive. Hence the poor consumption
under those conditions.

So am I right in thinking that (roughly speaking) for continuous running a
conventional system is more efficient, whereas doing a lot of shuffling
along in heavy traffic a hybrid can be better? Has anyone done the figures
(for current production technology conventional and hybrids) to work out
which would be better averaged out over national traffic patterns? In other
words, if you were to replace the entire national car fleet overnight with
equivalent hybrids would net fuel consumption increase or decrease?

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)"
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?

All the best ..

T i m

"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.

In article ,
says...
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)"
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.

The large number of gears on bikes is as much to do with the mechanism
as the need for many ratios close together. A lot of the ratios in a
21/24/27 speed setup are either duplicated or useless (you shouldn't use
the larger rear sprockets with the large chainwheel, the largest or
smallest sprockets with the middle chainwheel or the smaller sprockets
with the smallest chainwheel because it causes excessive wear and loss
of efficiency).
Many years ago when building my "dream bike" I spec'ed a 14-17-20-24-28
block with a 32-52 chainset, which gave a wide spread of evenly spaced
gears with no duplication - I soon realised that using ratios around the
middle of the range (which is where you usually spend most of your time)
required a lot of double-shifting, which just isn't convenient.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
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)"
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
UK) then it's a gas / oil powered car ..

I own several (pure) electric vehicles and they are certianly not the
solution to the problem. Hybrid'ing simply increases the range /
performance it does not provide a solution (even with a 'synergy
drive' lol) or hasn't yet (when hybrids can do many more mpg than
many 'stock' cars today then we might be getting somewhere).

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. How warm do you have to keep the garage for your hybrid /
electric car in the winter (to reduce cold battery capacity loss ..)
and where does that heating energy come from? ;-)

One must not engage in botty talk.

In article ,
says...
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)"
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' ...

Until you can get fuel cells with sufficient capacity at a sensible
cost, and charge then at home with solar, wind or nuclear power, hybrid
and electric vehicles are really just a way of shifting pollution out of
cities. Carting all those heavy batteries around is never going to be a
sensible solution.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
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)"
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' ...

Until you can get fuel cells with sufficient capacity at a sensible
cost, and charge then at home with solar, wind or nuclear power, hybrid
and electric vehicles are really just a way of shifting pollution out of
cities. Carting all those heavy batteries around is never going to be a
sensible solution.

Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These batteries
are not available in volume yet.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries are not available in volume yet.

Ok then. Quote the weight and amp hours of these batteries. No?

Your usual non understanding of things technical.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

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

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:59 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Have you ever considered the energy in a fuel tank - say £50 worth?
Now compare that to "modern state-of-the-art batteries"

They don't even come within the same order of magnitude.


--

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These batteries
are not available in volume yet.

Lithium Polymer (one of the best candidates for this - as you yourself
have stated) has an energy density of 166Wh/kg[1]

Petrol is of the order of 12000-13000Wh/kg[2][3] depending on the
source.

I make this about 70-80 times more efficient to carry your energy in
petrol than a battery if you ignore the fact that the fuel gets used
up. Assume that the tank averages a half-empty state you are about 150
times better off.

Out of interest diesel is about 13% better as far as gravimetric energy
density is concerned[3]


Refs:
[1] http://www.sanyo.com/batteries/lithpol.cfm
[2] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml
[3] http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:14:44 GMT, 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)"
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' ...


Not totally true. By operating heat engines at better efficiencies (and
powerstations are in general better than cars) yiou can get overall better
efficiencies.

Also car engines ae at their most effint (petrol ones) at mid to high
thtrottle settings. And zero efficiency idleing in traffic, The hybrid
exploits this somewhat to gain slight net gains.

Diesels are most efficient at lower part throttle settings.

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
UK) then it's a gas / oil powered car ..

I own several (pure) electric vehicles and they are certianly not the
solution to the problem. Hybrid'ing simply increases the range /
performance it does not provide a solution (even with a 'synergy
drive' lol) or hasn't yet (when hybrids can do many more mpg than
many 'stock' cars today then we might be getting somewhere).


If we do indeed build a load more nuclear power stations then electric cars
will be the best way to utilise that.

Current cutting edge battery technology is able to deliver 2-300 mile range
at reasonable weight and charge times but not yet at reasonable cost, and
there are some safety issues.

That is likely to impove drastically in the next few years though.

Fuel cells using hydrogen have only one advantage over those...'fill up
time' - in every other way they are likley to be almost impractical.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. How warm do you have to keep the garage for your hybrid /
electric car in the winter (to reduce cold battery capacity loss ..)
and where does that heating energy come from? ;-)

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:
Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week

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

They keep on saying these have arrived. But the idea of using a petrol
engine is purely for the US where there is a great resistance to deisel.
No one makes a hybrid diesel because a plain diesel with the same
performance is more fuel efficient.

--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:
Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week

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

They keep on saying these have arrived.

Correct they have. I have one. They are here definately.

** snip lots of senile botty talk **

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the concept, we just need better batteries.

They keep on saying these have arrived.

Correct they have. I have one. They are here definately.

1293 Prius cars sold between 2000 and 2003 in the UK. The new model has
done better. But the original grant of 1000 quid was reduced to 700 and
has now stopped because Powershift has run out of money. And figures for
after this ain't available yet.

Given that the UK has just about the highest fuel cost if they really did
achieve 130 mpg day by day as you claim everyone would buy one.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the concept, we just need better
batteries.

They keep on saying these have arrived.

Correct they have. I have one. They are here definately.

1293 Prius cars

** snip boring senile stuff **

The Hygrogen Fuel engine that BMW are throwing millions at is a far
better proposition .. waste product is only water ... Hydrogen is easy
to produce and not a fossil fuel.
No heavy batteries to crat about (with dubious life)
They already have concepts up and running ... filling time at pump is
very fast, and the liquid hydrogen is stired in what sound like a
sponge, and is safer than petrol in the event of a collision.

Knowing BMW it will have a HUGE price penalty, as just about
everything is an extra (and very expensive extra at that)

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Hygrogen Fuel engine that BMW are throwing millions at is a far
better proposition .. waste product is only water ... Hydrogen is easy
to produce

It is? Look again. Takes a lot of energy like oil. That is why Bush likes
it.

and not a fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel to produce it. Hydrogen is not in a natural state, it has to be
cracked to get it.

No heavy batteries to crat about (with dubious life)

Modern batteries, Lith Ion, Lith poly as exceptional. Toyota give a 8 years
guarantee on the battery set.

They already have concepts up and running ... filling time at pump is
very fast,

One in Iceland apparently.

and the liquid hydrogen is stired in what sound like a
sponge, and is safer than petrol in the event of a collision.

Don't let the policeman hear you.

Knowing BMW it will have a HUGE price penalty,

And painted black.

as just about
everything is an extra (and very expensive extra at that)

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Hygrogen Fuel engine that BMW are throwing millions at is a far
better proposition .. waste product is only water ... Hydrogen is easy
to produce

It is? Look again. Takes a lot of energy like oil. That is why Bush
likes
it.

and not a fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel to produce it. Hydrogen is not in a natural state, it has to
be
cracked to get it.

I do believe you are learning.

Now if the hydrogen were produced by solar/wind it would be good.

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

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Hygrogen Fuel engine that BMW are throwing millions at is a far
better proposition .. waste product is only water ... Hydrogen is easy
to produce

It is? Look again. Takes a lot of energy like oil. That is why Bush
likes
it.

and not a fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel to produce it. Hydrogen is
not in a natural state, it has to
be cracked to get it.

I do believe you are learning.

Now if the hydrogen were produced by solar/wind it would be good.

Good thinking me boy. But do you know how much energy it takes to crack it?

Sorry to disappoint but Hydrogen can easily be produced without fossil
fuel .... water is typically used (H2O) either catalyse or electrolyse
off the oxygen, and you have clean Hydrogen. (or Plasma arc process of
Kværner Engineering)
I know that industrial processes for Hydrogen then recirculate the
Oxygen to produce the energy for the process.

Presently there are also processes for bulk steam reforming of natural
gas or methane

OK it can be argued that you are probably using fossil fuel to produce
the electricity for any electrolytic process - but there are
workarounds for that.

If you want more details look at:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html

They discuss a hugely efficient process (almost 100%) with 1005 usable
output products.

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...


Sorry to disappoint but Hydrogen can easily be produced without fossil fuel
..... water is typically used (H2O) either catalyse or electrolyse off the
oxygen, and you have clean Hydrogen. (or Plasma arc process of Kværner
Engineering) I know that industrial processes for Hydrogen then recirculate
the Oxygen to produce the energy for the process.

Presently there are also processes for bulk steam reforming of natural gas
or methane

OK it can be argued that you are probably using fossil fuel to produce the
electricity for any electrolytic process - but there are workarounds for
that.

If you want more details look at:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html

They discuss a hugely efficient process (almost 100%) with 1005 usable
output products.



"Please also note that because of the staggering loss of exergy, use of
electrolysis for bulk hydrogen apps is a really, really dumb thing to do.
It is the equivalent of exchanging two US dollars for one Mexican peso."

http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

On 27 Nov 2005 10:29:01 -0800, Rick wrote:

Sorry to disappoint but Hydrogen can easily be produced without fossil
fuel .... water is typically used (H2O) either catalyse or electrolyse
off the oxygen, and you have clean Hydrogen. (or Plasma arc process of
Kværner Engineering)

Thos etakler electricirty which comes from where?

I know that industrial processes for Hydrogen then recirculate the
Oxygen to produce the energy for the process.

Presently there are also processes for bulk steam reforming of natural
gas or methane

Natural gas an methane are fossil fuels

OK it can be argued that you are probably using fossil fuel to produce
the electricity for any electrolytic process - but there are
workarounds for that.

Not unless you use nuclear energy or wind turbines or some such there
ain't...and there is bugger all non fossil electrc capacity in our grid at
the moment/

If you want more details look at:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html

They discuss a hugely efficient process (almost 100%) with 1005 usable
output products.

More adverts.

On 25 Nov 2005 10:52:29 -0800, Rick wrote:

The Hygrogen Fuel engine that BMW are throwing millions at is a far
better proposition .. waste product is only water ... Hydrogen is easy
to produce and not a fossil fuel.
No heavy batteries to crat about (with dubious life)
They already have concepts up and running ... filling time at pump is
very fast, and the liquid hydrogen is stired in what sound like a
sponge, and is safer than petrol in the event of a collision.

Knowing BMW it will have a HUGE price penalty, as just about
everything is an extra (and very expensive extra at that)

Overall hydrigen will be even more polluting than diesel. The power
stations that make teh electricity that makes teh hydrogen have to burn
something

How is the hydrogen made? It needs more energy in than you get out of it..

How will it be transported? Stored?

It may be the de facto aviation fuel in 50 years time, but its a nono on
the roads.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week
including owner's views. Far too long to quote here - it's several pages -
and it's not on the website. So anyone interested will just have to buy
it. ;-)

This is the mag that said the Prius did 26mpg, according to the senile one,
when everyone else gets 60 plus. 100s of reports say 60mpg plus but this
says 26mpg. Wow, now they really are worth taking notice of, aren't they.
Duh!

Yup. Dragging all that dead wright about sure improves the thirst of
that V6....

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:58:17 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week
including owner's views. Far too long to quote here - it's several pages -
and it's not on the website. So anyone interested will just have to buy
it. ;-)

This is the mag that said the Prius did 26mpg, according to the senile one,
when everyone else gets 60 plus. 100s of reports say 60mpg plus but this
says 26mpg. Wow, now they really are worth taking notice of, aren't they.
Duh!

Real world, 54 (UK) mpg .. (source: Prius forum) fantastic.

I'll pass till they get it working properly thanks ..

T i m

(p.s. And 'bigger batteries' will only make the (real) mpg worse ....)

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:58:17 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...

Very interesting article about this flawed concept in Autocar this week
including owner's views. Far too long to quote here - it's several
pages -
and it's not on the website. So anyone interested will just have to buy
it. ;-)

This is the mag that said the Prius did 26mpg, according to the senile
one,
when everyone else gets 60 plus. 100s of reports say 60mpg plus but this
says 26mpg. Wow, now they really are worth taking notice of, aren't
they.
Duh!

Real world, 54 (UK) mpg .. (source: Prius forum) fantastic.

I'll pass till they get it working properly thanks ..

Auto Express got 65mpg.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
This is the mag that said the Prius did 26mpg, according to the senile
one, when everyone else gets 60 plus. 100s of reports say 60mpg plus
but this says 26mpg. Wow, now they really are worth taking notice of,
aren't they. Duh!

Real world, 54 (UK) mpg .. (source: Prius forum) fantastic.

There are two owner reports on the Prius in the article. Both like their
cars of course. One living in Feltham, which is a suburb of London,
doesn't give a figure but admits it's nothing like the claimed combined
65.7mpg. Nor would it be expected to be so given those tests are for
comparison between conventional vehicles and not a guarantee of what
you'll get in practice as everyone who drives a car knows.

The other owner is in rural Hampshire but claims 60 mpg.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
T i m wrote:

This is the mag that said the Prius did 26mpg, according to the senile
one, when everyone else gets 60 plus. 100s of reports say 60mpg plus
but this says 26mpg. Wow, now they really are worth taking notice of,
aren't they. Duh!

Real world, 54 (UK) mpg .. (source: Prius forum) fantastic.

The other owner is in rural Hampshire but claims 60 mpg.

Which is about right.