The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Some cars also used to have small diesel space heaters along the lines
of http://www.eberspacher.com/airheatin...ion=airheating for
the interior.

Many modern diesels do - they're too heat efficient for the normal
water- to-air heater matrix to work very well.

What planet are you on? No diesel is better than 32% efficient top whack
and they produce several bhp just idling.

Show me ONE example..in THIS world.

shrug You don't believe me, fine.

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:18:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs, now
is another matter.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Roberts wrote:
Can someone explain to me about why not to top post?
[elsewhere "what is snipping"]

The idea is that it can make a post self-contained: you read the bit
of a post which someone is replying to, and then their comment.

For example, almost all of the stuff in your post was irrelevant to
this post, so I snipped it, apart from the thing I was replying to.
Someone can come across this post and make sense of it (hopefully).

Imagine how difficult it would be for someone reading this post on its
own to understand if I'd top posted. The first thing they'd read would
be "The idea is that it can make a post self-contained". What idea?
Then they'd have to wade through some argument about snipping, and
then reach a bizarre self-referential paragraph, this one, which may
mean that this post is in response to something about top-posting, or
this may just be a parenthetical observation followed by a long series
of questions indicating some kind of doubt about authorial intent.
Without the context, how are they to know? Once that it's been
resolved by the sheer size and complexity of this paragraph that it's
probably not paranthetical, it still remains to be determined "Why am
I writing about top-posting"? Is it just something I do from time to
time? Or am I responding to some point someone raised about it? Or
perhaps it's some kind of lame "post-modern" gag? Perhaps I'm just
insane?

Why aren't they reading the thread in order? Well, threads are
non-linear so you always have to retreat some distance up your stack,
and sometimes you have to do things which aren't reading posts.

Only when they reached the end would they realise the context, by
which time they'd realise that they didn't care. But it's too late by
then, they'd have waded throught all this rubbish when they finally saw:

Dan.

Roberts wrote:
Can someone explain to me about why not to top post?
[elsewhere "what is snipping"]

"Dan Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Roberts wrote:
Can someone explain to me about why not to top post?
[elsewhere "what is snipping"]

The idea is that it can make a post self-contained: you read the bit
of a post which someone is replying to, and then their comment.

Except that when I have to scroll down to see anything new I usually don't
bother, hence

(1) if you top post I might read what you write (and might, as discussed, be
confused by it, or might not if I've been following the thread)
(2) if you bottom post having snipped properly I might read what you write
and understand it

but the worst possible outcome is

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted before
your new material there's little chance I will read what you say *at* *all*.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

"Tim Ward" wrote in message
...

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted before
your new material there's little chance I will read what you say *at*
*all*.

Your loss.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Tim Ward" wrote in message
...

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted before
your new material there's little chance I will read what you say *at*
*all*.

Your loss.

I'm not claiming everybody behaves like me, but I *do* claim that there's
nothing special about me, so it won't just be my readership that's lost. The
whole point of writing something is, usually, that you hope people are going
to read it ...

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:18:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs, now
is another matter.

Let me guess - engine problems? Bearings or rings? Caused by the
engine never getting properly warm because the thermostat was defective?

Andy

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:52:08 +0100, Tim Ward wrote:
but the worst possible outcome is

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted before
your new material there's little chance I will read what you say *at* *all*.

Seconded. If I'm in a hurry I'll just bin anything where I can't see
at least some of the new message text on screen. Ditto with emails. Scads
of unsnipped reply-to text is just as irritating as top-posting IMHO.

cheers

Jules

In message , Tim Ward
writes
"Dan Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Roberts wrote:
Can someone explain to me about why not to top post?
[elsewhere "what is snipping"]

The idea is that it can make a post self-contained: you read the bit
of a post which someone is replying to, and then their comment.

Except that when I have to scroll down to see anything new I usually don't
bother, hence

(1) if you top post I might read what you write (and might, as discussed, be
confused by it, or might not if I've been following the thread)
(2) if you bottom post having snipped properly I might read what you write
and understand it

but the worst possible outcome is

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted before
your new material there's little chance I will read what you say *at* *all*.

Your loss there, then

You top post and, especially in uk.d-i-y, people will tend to ignore you

It's a convention that exists for the reasons explained by others

Top posters can rant and rave all they like, but, eventually, they
either conform or go away when nobody bothers to reply to them

--
geoff

In message , Tim Ward
writes
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"Tim Ward" wrote in message
...

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted before
your new material there's little chance I will read what you say *at*
*all*.

Your loss.

I'm not claiming everybody behaves like me, but I *do* claim that there's
nothing special about me, so it won't just be my readership that's lost. The
whole point of writing something is, usually, that you hope people are going
to read it ...

you just answered your own point there

--
geoff

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs,
now is another matter.

Let me guess - engine problems? Bearings or rings? Caused by the
engine never getting properly warm because the thermostat was defective?

Nope the engine is fine. Diesels just don't generate vast amounts of waste
heat at idle.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:08:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

At three quid a day to park the cars, the thing is feasible. Ive paid
more than that for an hour in a Cambridge car park WITHOUT electricity..

Aye, having worked through your figures and even making each car take
50kWh and adding a supply connection cost of £20k for 100 spaces over 10
years. It still doesn't reach your £3/day surcharge. Make the connection
fee £200k and you still don't break it. That is with power at todays
prices, I used 10p/unit. Interesting...

I wonder how the suits would react to spending half a million quid
powering the carpark though?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:


It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs,
now is another matter.

Let me guess - engine problems? Bearings or rings? Caused by the
engine never getting properly warm because the thermostat was defective?


Nope the engine is fine. Diesels just don't generate vast amounts of waste
heat at idle.

You are not kidding :-(

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile drive
to or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to come on
for the last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Dave

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Top posting also discourages popple from reading the whole email. This
can cause huge problems when engaged in a technical discussion with a
customer, where many points have been raised.

Where no company with sense would use the email body to show the actual
changes to a technical document anyway.

I did not mention technical documents. Answering an email containing
technical questions is not at all the same thing!


One beauty of technical questions in an email is that the OP can then be
linked to the appropriate section of the www site. We have a huge body of
tech into the http://www.4qd.co.uk

--
Richard Torrens -
The email address used here is time limited and must not be added to any mailing list: A charge will be invoiced for handling any unsolicited mailing list emails received.

In article ,
Tim Ward wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Tim Ward" wrote in message
...

(3) if you bottom post and leave more than about ten lines quoted
before your new material there's little chance I will read what you
say *at* *all*.

Your loss.

I'm not claiming everybody behaves like me, but I *do* claim that
there's nothing special about me, so it won't just be my readership
that's lost. The whole point of writing something is, usually, that you
hope people are going to read it ...

Agreed. I find that posters who are too lazy to snip excessive quoting
rarely say anything worth reading!

--
Richard Torrens -
This time limited email address and must not be added to any mailing list: A charge will be invoiced for handling any unsolicited mailing list emails received.
www.4qd.co.uk www.4qdtec.com www.torrens.org.uk

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:


It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs, now
is another matter.

Let me guess - engine problems? Bearings or rings? Caused by the engine
never getting properly warm because the thermostat was defective?


Nope the engine is fine. Diesels just don't generate vast amounts of
waste heat at idle.

You are not kidding :-(

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile drive to
or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to come on for the
last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Go outside ten mins before you start out, run the engine at idle for ~30
seconds, go back in and finish what you are doing.
You will find it heats up quite well.

In article ,
R.C. Payne wrote:
Richard Torrens wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On a proper electrc car, the brake pedal is what starts the regenerative
braking, only when you go past a certain level do the final friction
brakes cut in..
Regen braking can also recover a significant amount of the KE used in
town driving - stop-start cycle.

Makes sense, certainly. Smaller controllers don't work like that, but
could be so designed (anyone interested in working on such?).

Electric trains/trams/buses (of the non-battery variety) have been doing
all of these things for years. It is not difficult, it is not new, it's
just not currently applied to private motor cars.

Yes it is. My car has regenerative braking.

Dave wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:


It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs,
now is another matter.

Let me guess - engine problems? Bearings or rings? Caused by the
engine never getting properly warm because the thermostat was defective?


Nope the engine is fine. Diesels just don't generate vast amounts of
waste heat at idle.

You are not kidding :-(

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile drive
to or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to come on
for the last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Dave
Cast iron bocks usuaully. Taker a long time to heat.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile drive
to or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to come on
for the last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Go outside ten mins before you start out, run the engine at idle for ~30
seconds, go back in and finish what you are doing. You will find it
heats up quite well.

Are you suggesting leaving the car idling for ten minutes? Or idle it for
30secs, then leave it for ten minutes?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile drive
to or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to come on
for the last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Go outside ten mins before you start out, run the engine at idle for ~30
seconds, go back in and finish what you are doing. You will find it
heats up quite well.

Are you suggesting leaving the car idling for ten minutes? Or idle it for
30secs, then leave it for ten minutes?


I wouldn't leave it for ten minutes, someone might nick it.
No, its to allow the heat to spread through the block, oil, etc. makes the
heaters work quicker.
How quick depends on the car.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile
drive to or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to
come on for the last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Go outside ten mins before you start out, run the engine at idle for
~30 seconds, go back in and finish what you are doing. You will find
it heats up quite well.

Are you suggesting leaving the car idling for ten minutes? Or idle it
for 30secs, then leave it for ten minutes?

I wouldn't leave it for ten minutes, someone might nick it. No, its to
allow the heat to spread through the block, oil, etc. makes the heaters
work quicker.
How quick depends on the car.

Idling for 30sec will barely put any heat in the coolant, let alone the
oil. Standing for ten minutes will certainly loose even that little heat.

Starting from cold, idling for 30sec, then switching off can also cause
some petrol engined cars to kick the engine management into a "flood
protection" mode which will prevent the car from starting again for an
extended period of time.

On May 27, 11:22 am, Adrian wrote:
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html
A very small step (for man or mankind....)

"The S-Class car, a 'mild' hybrid that will still draw most of
its power from petrol..."

Indeed.

But do Lithium Ion batteries provide the step forward that's being
alleged?

Not really. One litre of petrol provides 35MJ of energy, about 10kWh.
Even a small car will have a c.50 litre fuel tank, something the size of
an S-class nearer double that.

So that's 0.5-1MWh of energy on board. Wonder how big the battery pack
would have to be to replace that...? Wonder how long it'll take to
recharge...?

Unless and until that's addressed, pure-electric cars can only replace
internal combustion for short-to-medium journey use.

Your comparison is flawed.

First of all, the overall thermodynamic efficiency of an electric car
is about 70-80% (discharge losses + electric motor losses). The
thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine is 20-25% at
best.

So in an electric car, you only need to store about 1/3 of the energy
to drive the same distance.

Secondly, electric cars with in-wheel motors are considerably lighter
than ICE cars before adding the battery. Electric motors have a higher
power density then internal combustion engines so they are lighter.
Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels), the transmission, the
exhaust system and the cooling system, saving even more weight. All
this freed up weight and space can be taken up by batteries.

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they don't
weigh more than ICE cars overall. Compare that to only 30-50 kg of
fuel stored in a tank.

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.
Modern electric motors also operate close to maximum efficiency at all
speeds, while ICEs don't.

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars, even if the
energy density of batteries, on a energy/weight basis, is so much
lower than petrol.

Range is not what's holding back battery-electric cars anymore. What's
holding them back now is the cost and limited lifetime of Li-ion
batteries.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I bought a diesel Rover 45 when they went bust. For a 3 1/5 mile
drive to or from our house, I am freezing waiting for the heater to
come on for the last 100 yards of the journey in winter.

Go outside ten mins before you start out, run the engine at idle for
~30 seconds, go back in and finish what you are doing. You will find
it heats up quite well.

Are you suggesting leaving the car idling for ten minutes? Or idle it
for 30secs, then leave it for ten minutes?

I wouldn't leave it for ten minutes, someone might nick it. No, its to
allow the heat to spread through the block, oil, etc. makes the heaters
work quicker.
How quick depends on the car.

Idling for 30sec will barely put any heat in the coolant, let alone the
oil. Standing for ten minutes will certainly loose even that little heat.

It works for me, like I said it varies with the car.

Starting from cold, idling for 30sec, then switching off can also cause
some petrol engined cars to kick the engine management into a "flood
protection" mode which will prevent the car from starting again for an
extended period of time.

Not any car I have ever used it wont.
They must have pretty poor management if they can flood the cat with enough
unburnt fuel to need to prevent the engine starting until its evaporated.
Which cars are that bad so I can avoid them?

Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Secondly, electric cars with in-wheel motors are considerably lighter
than ICE cars before adding the battery.

But heavier after.

Electric motors have a higher power density then internal combustion
engines so they are lighter.

But the batteries are considerably heavier than the fuel tank.

Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels)

which plays havoc with the unsprung weight, giving considerably worse
ride and handling, and requiring heavier duty suspension.

the transmission, the exhaust system and the cooling system, saving
even more weight. All this freed up weight and space can be taken up by
batteries.

....and then some...

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they don't
weigh more than ICE cars overall.

If they have 300-500kg of batteries, before including the weight of the
motors and cabling, then they will inevitably weigh more than an
equivalent ICE cars, because an entire ICE drivetrain weighs less than
that.

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.

Stop-Start in city traffic is hardly unusual in ICE cars.

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km

chortle

Range is not what's holding back battery-electric cars anymore. What's
holding them back now is the cost and limited lifetime of Li-ion
batteries.

Indeed. And the chemistry of those batteries, in manufacture and
disposal, is sooooo environmentally friendly.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna wrote:

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars,

In English 310 miles, the full to "running on air" range of my car is just
over 600 miles. I normally fill up somewhere between 450 and 500 miles.

--
Cheers
Dave.

But heavier after.

It depends on the car.

But even in the worst case scenario, if the battery car ends up 300 kg
heavier than the ICE car (that's 20%), it still consumes less energy
than the ICE car because its thermodynamic efficiency is so much
higher.

Even if the electricity used to charge a battery car were 100% derived
from oil power plants, it would still use less oil per km than an
equivalent ICE car. Modern combined-cycle thermal power plants are 60%
efficient. Electricity transmission is 95% efficient. Charging/
uncharging about 80% and the electric motor about 95%. And don't
forget that reforming crude oil into petrol takes a lot of energy too,
while power plants are able to burn the heavier oil fractions
directly.

which plays havoc with the unsprung weight, giving considerably worse
ride and handling, and requiring heavier duty suspension.

That's a good point. Do you know how much an in-wheel motor wheel on
the Mitsubishi Colt weighs compared to a normal wheel? Would be an
interesting figure to obtain. Each motor is rated at 20 kW. I guess
that's why Mitsubishi only put them on the rear wheels where the
handling is less affected.

I am not sure how much of a difference unsprung weight really makes. I
have driven the same car, an Audi A3, with alloy wheels and steel
wheels and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. Made me think
that perhaps alloy wheels are just a marketing scam. Or maybe I didn't
drive it fast enough ;-)

the transmission, the exhaust system and the cooling system, saving
even more weight. All this freed up weight and space can be taken up by
batteries.

...and then some...

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they don't
weigh more than ICE cars overall.

If they have 300-500kg of batteries, before including the weight of the
motors and cabling, then they will inevitably weigh more than an
equivalent ICE cars, because an entire ICE drivetrain weighs less than
that.

They don't just replace the drivetrain. They replace most of the
engine assembly, the exhaust system, and the water cooling system.

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.

Stop-Start in city traffic is hardly unusual in ICE cars.

True, hybrids do negate that advantage.

Indeed. And the chemistry of those batteries, in manufacture and
disposal, is sooooo environmentally friendly.

That's a difficult comparison to make, because both ICE cars and
battery cars are recycled very efficiently these days. Batteries
contain valuable metals, so it is unlikely that they will simply be
thrown away at the end of their life cycle. Not unlike catalytic
coverters. Are the toxic emissions (dicounting CO2) from manufacturing
500 kg of Li-ion batteries worse than the emissions from burning
10,000 L of petrol in an ICE? Hard to tell.

Anyhow, I think that the main advantages of battery cars will be
economic, not environmental, once batteries are mass produced at high
volume and low price. If the current downward trend in battery prices
continues, they may well replace the ICE.

Diesels don't have catalytic converters... petrol engines do and
therefore emit more C02

Modern diesels do have catalytic converters.

Mastuna wrote:
On May 27, 11:22 am, Adrian wrote:
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html
A very small step (for man or mankind....)
"The S-Class car, a 'mild' hybrid that will still draw most of
its power from petrol..."
Indeed.

But do Lithium Ion batteries provide the step forward that's being
alleged?

Not really. One litre of petrol provides 35MJ of energy, about 10kWh.
Even a small car will have a c.50 litre fuel tank, something the size of
an S-class nearer double that.

So that's 0.5-1MWh of energy on board. Wonder how big the battery pack
would have to be to replace that...? Wonder how long it'll take to
recharge...?

Unless and until that's addressed, pure-electric cars can only replace
internal combustion for short-to-medium journey use.

Your comparison is flawed.

First of all, the overall thermodynamic efficiency of an electric car
is about 70-80% (discharge losses + electric motor losses).

Bit better than that atually with LIPO.Probably in the low 90's

The
thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine is 20-25% at
best.

So in an electric car, you only need to store about 1/3 of the energy
to drive the same distance.

Less with regenerative braking and efficient tyre and aerodynamic design.

Secondly, electric cars with in-wheel motors are considerably lighter
than ICE cars before adding the battery. Electric motors have a higher
power density then internal combustion engines so they are lighter.
Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels), the transmission, the
exhaust system and the cooling system, saving even more weight. All
this freed up weight and space can be taken up by batteries.

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they don't
weigh more than ICE cars overall. Compare that to only 30-50 kg of
fuel stored in a tank.

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.
Modern electric motors also operate close to maximum efficiency at all
speeds, while ICEs don't.

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars, even if the
energy density of batteries, on a energy/weight basis, is so much
lower than petrol.

Range is not what's holding back battery-electric cars anymore. What's
holding them back now is the cost and limited lifetime of Li-ion
batteries.

Cost yes, lifetime no. The car environment is not harsh rate wise: they
should do 500+ cycles which at 200 miles would be 100K mile.
Recharge time is the one the customer may baulk at.

There is a chicken and egg situation here until cheap volume batteries
are available the cars wont be built: without the cars there is no
incentive to develop the batteries in the volume to get the price down.

We (the model community) started on cellphone and laptop batteries,
became a significant market, and now we get batteries tailored to our
needs (light and high discharge rate)

The T-zero uses IIRC some sort of laptop battery in vast numbers.

Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Secondly, electric cars with in-wheel motors are considerably lighter
than ICE cars before adding the battery.

But heavier after.

Electric motors have a higher power density then internal combustion
engines so they are lighter.

But the batteries are considerably heavier than the fuel tank.

Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels)

which plays havoc with the unsprung weight, giving considerably worse
ride and handling, and requiring heavier duty suspension.

the transmission, the exhaust system and the cooling system, saving
even more weight. All this freed up weight and space can be taken up by
batteries.

...and then some...

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they don't
weigh more than ICE cars overall.

If they have 300-500kg of batteries, before including the weight of the
motors and cabling, then they will inevitably weigh more than an
equivalent ICE cars, because an entire ICE drivetrain weighs less than
that.

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.

Stop-Start in city traffic is hardly unusual in ICE cars.

Exactly. But its still inefficient, and still rare.

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km

chortle

Its true. It is POSSIBLE. Its just very expensive and very prototype.

Range is not what's holding back battery-electric cars anymore. What's
holding them back now is the cost and limited lifetime of Li-ion
batteries.

Indeed. And the chemistry of those batteries, in manufacture and
disposal, is sooooo environmentally friendly.

Its a lot more environmentally friendly than a traditional car,with lead
starter batteries, high energy iron and aluminum castings, etc etc.

Mastuna wrote:
But heavier after.

It depends on the car.

But even in the worst case scenario, if the battery car ends up 300 kg
heavier than the ICE car (that's 20%), it still consumes less energy
than the ICE car because its thermodynamic efficiency is so much
higher.

Even if the electricity used to charge a battery car were 100% derived
from oil power plants, it would still use less oil per km than an
equivalent ICE car. Modern combined-cycle thermal power plants are 60%
efficient. Electricity transmission is 95% efficient. Charging/
uncharging about 80% and the electric motor about 95%. And don't
forget that reforming crude oil into petrol takes a lot of energy too,
while power plants are able to burn the heavier oil fractions
directly.

which plays havoc with the unsprung weight, giving considerably worse
ride and handling, and requiring heavier duty suspension.

That's a good point. Do you know how much an in-wheel motor wheel on
the Mitsubishi Colt weighs compared to a normal wheel? Would be an
interesting figure to obtain. Each motor is rated at 20 kW. I guess
that's why Mitsubishi only put them on the rear wheels where the
handling is less affected.

I am not sure how much of a difference unsprung weight really makes. I
have driven the same car, an Audi A3, with alloy wheels and steel
wheels and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. Made me think
that perhaps alloy wheels are just a marketing scam. Or maybe I didn't
drive it fast enough ;-)

It makes a great deal of difference in a racing or rally car, but its
not teh be all and end all of car performance. Ona smooth road it makes
almost NO difference. Anyway the motors in the wheels are very light,
scarceley more than the swing axle on a traditional design , and of
course the statement that it needs heavier duty suspension is more or
less ********: that is function of the car SPRUNG weight, by and large.



the transmission, the exhaust system and the cooling system, saving
even more weight. All this freed up weight and space can be taken up by
batteries.
...and then some...

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they don't
weigh more than ICE cars overall.
If they have 300-500kg of batteries, before including the weight of the
motors and cabling, then they will inevitably weigh more than an
equivalent ICE cars, because an entire ICE drivetrain weighs less than
that.

They don't just replace the drivetrain. They replace most of the
engine assembly, the exhaust system, and the water cooling system.

the starter motor, the alternator, the regulator,the starter battery,
the fuel injection system, the distributor, the fuel pump, the oil
filters, the gearbox..its perfectly possible to get to - apart from
probably an electric cooling fan or two - only four moving parts - the
wheels/motors themselves. Plus a few suspension and steering joints.

...

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.
Stop-Start in city traffic is hardly unusual in ICE cars.

True, hybrids do negate that advantage.

Indeed. And the chemistry of those batteries, in manufacture and
disposal, is sooooo environmentally friendly.

That's a difficult comparison to make, because both ICE cars and
battery cars are recycled very efficiently these days. Batteries
contain valuable metals, so it is unlikely that they will simply be
thrown away at the end of their life cycle. Not unlike catalytic
coverters. Are the toxic emissions (dicounting CO2) from manufacturing
500 kg of Li-ion batteries worse than the emissions from burning
10,000 L of petrol in an ICE? Hard to tell.

Anyhow, I think that the main advantages of battery cars will be
economic, not environmental, once batteries are mass produced at high
volume and low price. If the current downward trend in battery prices
continues, they may well replace the ICE.

They almost certainly will. Like nuclear power stations, they are teh
only technology sufficiently mature and economical to have a hope of
doing the job.

Mastuna wrote:
Diesels don't have catalytic converters... petrol engines do and
therefore emit more C02

Modern diesels do have catalytic converters.

SOME modern diesels.

"Mastuna" wrote in message
...

I am not sure how much of a difference unsprung weight really makes. I
have driven the same car, an Audi A3, with alloy wheels and steel
wheels and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. Made me think
that perhaps alloy wheels are just a marketing scam. Or maybe I didn't
drive it fast enough ;-)

Alloys are there for looks - they're not necessarily lighter than steels.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna wrote:

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars,

In English 310 miles, the full to "running on air" range of my car is just
over 600 miles. I normally fill up somewhere between 450 and 500 miles.

well I have got one 15 mile tank (lawnmoer) one 150 miel tank (series
III) one 175 mile tank (Trumph Spitfire) one 200 mile tank (camper) and
one 400 mile tank (freelander)

So I cant say that you 600 mile tank is normal.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:24:08 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna wrote:

I am not sure how much of a difference unsprung weight really makes. I
have driven the same car, an Audi A3, with alloy wheels and steel
wheels and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. Made me think
that perhaps alloy wheels are just a marketing scam.

Close alloy is lighter per unit volume than steel but isn't as strong so
you need much more of it to get the strength. Overall result is that an
alloy rim weighs much the same as the same size steel one.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jun 4, 1:13 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna wrote:
The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars,

In English 310 miles, the full to "running on air" range of my car is just
over 600 miles. I normally fill up somewhere between 450 and 500 miles

The battery car fills up nightly though.

So you're always starting the day with a "full tank". And how often do
you drive further than 500 km in a day? (sorry, I meant 2500 furlongs
- forgot we're using quaint units now ;-))

Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a couple
of days with no access to electricity overnight.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.

Stop-Start in city traffic is hardly unusual in ICE cars.

Exactly. But its still inefficient, and still rare.

Rapidly becoming less rare. And how is it "inefficient"?

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km

chortle

Its true. It is POSSIBLE. Its just very expensive and very prototype.

That's a highly optimistic maximum possible 300 miles? Or a real world
300 miles?

Indeed. And the chemistry of those batteries, in manufacture and
disposal, is sooooo environmentally friendly.

Its a lot more environmentally friendly than a traditional car,with lead
starter batteries, high energy iron and aluminum castings, etc etc.

Easily recyclable, though.

In article
,
Mastuna wrote:
Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels),

This statement is not true!

Without a gearbox you are talking massively high currents.

We have a calculator for this:
http://www.4qd.co.uk/faq/current.html Motor Current Calculator

Indeed some cars do have motors in wheels, but performance on steep hills
if excessively poor. It really does not work for an electric only car.

Furthermore, to maximise efficiency, the motor's brushes are offset. This
may mean the motor cannot be reversed (depending on the amount of offset).

--
Richard Torrens -
This time limited email address and must not be added to any mailing list: A charge will be invoiced for handling any unsolicited mailing list emails received.
www.4qd.co.uk www.4qdtec.com www.torrens.org.uk

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Bit better than that atually with LIPO.Probably in the low 90's


I keep seeing "LIPO" in posts - and my mind immediately assumes it is
what is extracted by liposuction. yeeeuuugrrghhh

But just perhaps that would be a good fuel these days?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Even if the electricity used to charge a battery car were 100% derived
from oil power plants, it would still use less oil per km than an
equivalent ICE car. Modern combined-cycle thermal power plants are 60%
efficient. Electricity transmission is 95% efficient. Charging/
uncharging about 80% and the electric motor about 95%.

So that's 43% efficient.

which plays havoc with the unsprung weight, giving considerably worse
ride and handling, and requiring heavier duty suspension.

That's a good point. Do you know how much an in-wheel motor wheel on the
Mitsubishi Colt weighs compared to a normal wheel?

Why "compared to"? The normal wheel is still fitted, as is a normal
brake. It's purely extra weight.

Oh, and the Colt electric weighs 200kg more than the equivalent diesel.

I am not sure how much of a difference unsprung weight really makes. I
have driven the same car, an Audi A3, with alloy wheels and steel wheels
and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. Made me think that
perhaps alloy wheels are just a marketing scam. Or maybe I didn't drive
it fast enough ;-)

Marketing... Most OEM alloys are at least the same weight as factory
steels - they have to be thick for reliability. On the XM I used to have,
I replaced the factory steels with OEM alloys. Same size rim. The alloy
was noticably heavier.

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they
don't weigh more than ICE cars overall.

If they have 300-500kg of batteries, before including the weight of the
motors and cabling, then they will inevitably weigh more than an
equivalent ICE cars, because an entire ICE drivetrain weighs less than
that.

They don't just replace the drivetrain. They replace most of the engine
assembly, the exhaust system, and the water cooling system.

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg). The battery pack in it is 22 modules, each 325v 40Ah. You
can probably calculate the weight from that, since Mitsu seem reluctant
in the articles I've read.

Anyhow, I think that the main advantages of battery cars will be
economic, not environmental, once batteries are mass produced at high
volume and low price. If the current downward trend in battery prices
continues, they may well replace the ICE.

Then there's the Li-Ion laptop battery recalls (and subsequent supply
problems) of the other year...