"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html


hybrid cars are *not* green.. they are an excuse for people to claim they
are green while still burning more fuel than a smaller car does.

That is nonsense. Hint: kerbside emissions.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Not in London as they have filters. Diesels busses shake like hell on
idle. The sooner they are electric hybrids the better.

Riiiight. Now, that would be "Electric hybrids" with the electricity
generated by what power source...?

Petrol.

Not the 1.9 diesel engines already in use in diesel-electric hybrid buses
in London, then...?

Petrol is better. It should be petrol

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 May 2008 13:54:34 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


p.s. And Hybrids really aren't in the equation .. 2 mile electric
range and IC powered after that shrug.

Only if you go on long runs. The average town journey has the motor
assisting a lot of the time.

sigh

And the electric motor gets it's
power from (and if you say the
batteries what happens after the two miles)?

You need to understand how they work properly.

No, the ONLY advantage of a Hybrid (over a straight IC car) is that
it can make use of regenerative breaking and only then presumably when
the batteries aren't already fully charged?

Kerbside emissions are virtually eliminated with a Prius.

Many similar sized cars can do the same mpg (with less complexity) so
nothing gained there either.

You really haven't a clue.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:50:18 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html


hybrid cars are *not* green.. they are an excuse for people to claim they
are green while still burning more fuel than a smaller car does.

That is nonsense.

It's fact.

Hint: kerbside emissions.

For 2 miles in the city traffic .. LOL!

All the best ..

T i m

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Toby Douglass gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Hasn't diesel caused a huge soot problem? they emit a lot more
particulate matter?

Not these days. Perticulate emissions have been VERY tightly controlled
in the last couple of rounds of Euro emission standards.

When they're new.

Even with excellent servicing they are smelly in only a few months. I
wouldn't inflict the particulates of a diesel engine on anyone.

Do you want to see the results of my MOT?
Particulates are so low they can't be measured.

Perhaps you're the exception which proves the rule :-)

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Toby Douglass" wrote in
message om...
wrote:
What they probably mean is that by introducing cleaner diesels (in the
particulate/smog sense) they have persuaded new buyers to pick a diesel
50% of the time, but that market is now saturated and if they want to
further reduce their *carbon* emissions they must look elsewhere than
sell people the better-mpg diesels which have been achieving that goal
so far.

Hasn't diesel caused a huge soot problem? they emit a lot more
particulate matter?


Only the older engines on public transport and lorries.
New cars emit virtually nothing.


But they don't stay new.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

....

Actually, PV cells can be the whole roof of the car in any climes. But
they don't help very much with heating on a dark winter day in the UK.

They don't help much on an even colder night either.

Nothing to do with temperature ...

"Richard Torrens" wrote in message
...
In article et,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:55:09 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

200 miles is a very large threshold. I'd use 50 miles as where "long
distance" starts.

Depends where you live. 50 miles is barely enough for our weekly
shopping run, the monthly one is 100 miles...

And how well does an electric car cope with altitude changes?

Properly designed, an electric car will have regen braking. This will
recover a significant amount of the potential energy when you go down
hill.

Provided, of course, you don't use the brake pedal!

The brake pedal does activate it.

Regen braking can also recover a significant amount of the KE used in town
driving - stop-start cycle.

Yep, where they shine. Many does on this thread think all cars only go on
motorways, so we should forget trying to advance matters and go back to the
1950s.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:50:18 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html


hybrid cars are *not* green.. they are an excuse for people to claim
they
are green while still burning more fuel than a smaller car does.

That is nonsense.

It's fact.

Hint: kerbside emissions.

For 2 miles in the city traffic .. LOL!

Get to know how they work. You clearly do not.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:56:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 May 2008 13:54:34 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


p.s. And Hybrids really aren't in the equation .. 2 mile electric
range and IC powered after that shrug.

Only if you go on long runs. The average town journey has the motor
assisting a lot of the time.

sigh

And the electric motor gets it's
power from (and if you say the
batteries what happens after the two miles)?

You need to understand how they work properly.

Please explain how my statement is incorrect?

No, the ONLY advantage of a Hybrid (over a straight IC car) is that
it can make use of regenerative breaking and only then presumably when
the batteries aren't already fully charged?

Kerbside emissions are virtually eliminated with a Prius.

For two miles, great, after that it's a plain old [1] IC car. What if
you live a few miles out of town (as most people do) drive hard into
town (so drawing on the battery) and were to switch it into electric
only mode when you saw some kerbs (otherwise the IC engine would be
frantically trying to get the battery charged while you were sat in
the traffic and doing zero mpg) it would take you what .. another
500 yards? So by 'virtually' you meant 'in your imagination'?

Even you Dr Dribble, cannot change the laws of science.

Many similar sized cars can do the same mpg (with less complexity) so
nothing gained there either.

You really haven't a clue.

I really have an EV, not just a catalogue. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

[1] and overcomplicated.

p.s. I've just had an idea. I could couple my Rover behind the
Electric car, with the Rovers engine stuck on 2000 rpm and with the
alternator hooked up to the Electric cars batteries .. presto .. A
Hybrid! (Oh no that would be the same as yours .. once the batteries
had gone flat I'd be effectively running from the IC engine in the
Rover .... doh!). I know, I'd turn the IC engine off once I got into
town (to reduce the kerbside emissions) and then I could drive about
producing 'virtually' no pollution there (at least) and only for ...
oh ..2 miles. Damn it again.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:37:52 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Hint: kerbside emissions.

For 2 miles in the city traffic .. LOL!

Get to know how they work. You clearly do not.

Oh look, someone is selling a perpetual motion machine on eBay ..
quick ...

All the best ..

T i m

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:


Rail travel is not conspicuously greener* than car travel in the first
place so adding the dead weight of a car to the equation would kill any
potential saving.

*Rail travel is on a par per passenger with an average car with two
aboard.


That depends on how your railway is powerd: if it electric and not from
fossil fuel, its 100% greener..

That't a very big if.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:


Yes but picking a diesel does precious little for carbon saving in the
first place.

Oh, that's not true: they are markedly more efficient at part throttle
cruise than a petrol. nd when blown, pretty good at higher power levels,
too.

Diesels have improved in recent years but overall with the best
technology in the world they are unlikely to be more than 25% more fuel
efficient than their petrol counterparts.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

But what?


Electric cars from non fossil generated electricity will cut both carbon
and other emissions?

Yes but switching to diesel saves precious little.

It probably saves about 30%.

It won't save more than about 25% at best.

It is a gross
exaggeration to claim that switching to diesel has "dramatically brought
down" fuel consumption let alone carbon consumption and with the price
disparity these days the economic benefit is looking a bit thin as well.


Well it depends on what you call 'dramatic' - i'd say that 30% on mpg
and nearly that on CO2*, is significant, but not dramatic.

Certainly significant in terms of fuel consumption even though your 30%
is OTT but your "nearly that on CO2" is way out.

The economic benefit is (now) stripped away almost entirely by the high
cost of diesel.

* diesel having less hydrogen to carbon ratio, is somewhat nearer to
coal than to gas..petrol tends in the other direction. Though additives
lower it again.

I had in mind a figure of 20% difference for the carbon content. I
cannot now find the source of that figure and an authoritative Merkin
source would have it that a (US) gallon of petrol produces 19.4 lbs of
CO2 with the figure for diesel 22.2. That difference is also certainly
significant and by my reckoning would reduce the possible maximum
difference from 25% to 14%.

--
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:


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

"Rod" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html

But how do you heat an electric car? Not much fun using a totally
unheated behicle in the winter. Even keeping the screens clear
becomes a bit of a problem.

Some earlier electric cars had petrol burners to warm the interior.
Is that included in the fuel efficiency claimed?

There is zero insulation in a car. Insulation can be bonded onto the
car panels. Herat can be reclaimed from the electric motor too.

In sunnier climes PV cells can be the whole roof of the car.


But with the super efficent electric motors they use, the 'waste' heat
will be fairly low - and will not devleop until the car has been
driven for a while. So some means is still required for clearing
screens and keeping occupants tolerably comfortable.

Actually, PV cells can be the whole roof of the car in any climes. But
they don't help very much with heating on a dark winter day in the UK.

They don't help much on an even colder night either.

So true!

--
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

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:37:52 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Hint: kerbside emissions.

For 2 miles in the city traffic .. LOL!

Get to know how they work. You clearly do not.

Oh look, someone is selling a perpetual motion machine on eBay ..
quick ...

Wonder why they're selling it - guarantee run out or does it go round in
circles ... ?

Mary

dennis@home wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Toby Douglass
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Hasn't diesel caused a huge soot problem? they emit a lot more
particulate matter?

Not these days. Perticulate emissions have been VERY tightly
controlled in the last couple of rounds of Euro emission standards.

When they're new.

Even with excellent servicing they are smelly in only a few months. I
wouldn't inflict the particulates of a diesel engine on anyone.

Do you want to see the results of my MOT?
Particulates are so low they can't be measured.

Small enough to pass straight through the nose and into the lungs with no
interference along with way, well that's encouraging then. If you think a
diesel vehicle is clean it's worth watching the back end as it pulls away
from the lights.

Paul

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Toby Douglass gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Hasn't diesel caused a huge soot problem? they emit a lot more
particulate matter?
Not these days. Perticulate emissions have been VERY tightly controlled
in the last couple of rounds of Euro emission standards.

When they're new.

Even with excellent servicing they are smelly in only a few months. I
wouldn't inflict the particulates of a diesel engine on anyone.

Seems to me that I more often find myself following a really stinky
diesel vehicle these days than ever before. Probably because where DERVs
used to be almost exclusively vans, lorries and buses there are now lots
of cars.

--
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

dennis@home wrote:


"magwitch" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:41:35 on Tue, 27 May 2008, Roger
remarked:
"Cleaner diesel cars have dramatically brought down average
emissions in
Europe but diesel now accounts for about half of the market and
carmakers are looking elsewhere to cut their emissions."

Now what emissions would they be then?

I thought the article was all about reducing carbon consumption but ...

What they probably mean is that by introducing cleaner diesels (in
the particulate/smog sense) they have persuaded new buyers to pick a
diesel 50% of the time, but that market is now saturated and if they
want to further reduce their *carbon* emissions they must look
elsewhere than sell people the better-mpg diesels which have been
achieving that goal so far.

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

Mine does.

Mine doesn't.

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

Rubbish. Rover's K-series weighs about 130kg with transmission.

And radiator?

Weighs sod all.

Er.. alt least 13 litres of coolant in it, so 13kg..

Cars with _considerably_ larger engines and cooling system requirements
have far less coolant than that... The K-series holds around 4-5 litres
of coolant in the entire system.

and mountings for all those, and ancillary pipework?

Next-to-nothing.

about 40kg for enough steel to take the torque and vibration of a big IC
engine, and connect the stresses to the suspension pickup points.

How, exactly, were you planning to have this electric car deal with
suspension loadings and collision impacts?

with a minimal torsion box, of which te major part would probably be
integrated with the battery carrier cell.

Thats for the suspension anyway. you only neeed connect the cell to the
whhels..thats the only bit with any mass apart from the passengers.

As far as the passenger cell goes, I'd probbly take a leaf out of racing
practice, and make a roll /side impact cage and some crumple zones, and
encase that with foam plastic and moulded ppalstic panels, for lightness.


But there are plenty of ways to skin that cat.

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

Apart from the small detail that 200 miles worth of batteries alone
would weigh the same as, if not more than, the petrol car.

So a 2CV weighs 1/4 ton?

Umm, no.

But you just said it weighs half a tonne?

A 50KW pack is more than enough to take a 2CV type car 200 miles. It
weighs 275kg or less.

shrug OK, fine. So the estimate of half a ton given earlier in the
thread for a 50kWh battery pack was high.

Leaving another 225kg for te rest of the car.

Congratulations, you've just added 200kg to the total kerbweight of that
2cv, since the current powertrain weighs probably about 80kg max.



So either you are simple, a liar, or you cant do maths: Your choice
really.

One of us, anyway.

Indeed. Its hard to see how a half ton of car can be achieved with just
80kg of power train,. I mean in a 2cV what else is there? theres minimal
body weight, Ok there are a few heavies like cast iron brake drums, but
you can throw those away.

So either its a lot less thgan half a ton, or you have left a lot out of
the power train that is actually in it.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 17:54:21 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:37:52 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Hint: kerbside emissions.

For 2 miles in the city traffic .. LOL!

Get to know how they work. You clearly do not.

Oh look, someone is selling a perpetual motion machine on eBay ..
quick ...

Wonder why they're selling it - guarantee run out or does it go round in
circles ... ?

I think they built several Mary .. ;-)

I see Dribble is selling his Primus on eBay ..

http://tinyurl.com/3tvg54

Seriously though, anything that reduces emissions [1], especially in
built up areas [2] AND does many more mpg than alternatives should be
considered.

However, hybrids are no more than a stop-gap to better technologies,
aren't significantly better mpg than many std vehicles and ONLY offer
their reduced kerbside emissions in stop-start traffic areas (where we
shouldn't be driving in the first place).

A decent trip on decent roads (where you can maintain a constant speed
and brake rarely) and it's just an ordinary IC car.

The big problem these days is the volatility of everything. It seems
as soon as you change to a cheaper fuel source or vehicle then someone
moves the goalposts (didn't that happen to LPG recently?).

And who can afford to keep changing their vehicles every few months
(and what of the environmental cost of all these out_of_fashion
vehicles)?

I'm all for recycling, now where did I put that old chip oil? ;-)

All the best ..

T i m


[1] Even if it doesn't affect global warming.
[2] Pollution doesn't just stay where it's created.

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

Can your local substation cope with every house it supplies pulling so
much extra current?

Probably at 30% market penetration and when other domestic usage is
low..e.g. at 'cheap rate' times.

I am sure the same gumenst were applied to the motitr vis a vis the
availability of petrol when horseless carriages were first discussed:
now we have a multi-=billion pound insdutry tankering fuel around to
garages.

At least THEY would diappear from our roads..

Not if 70% - especially since that 70% is going to include trucks, vans,
high-mileage cars - are still petrol/diesel.

Anyway - if 12hrs is only giving you 50 miles range, an hour on a
meter's barely worth bothering with.

you are getting confused. 12 hours at 3Kw is 36Kwh. That is the limit of
a standard 13A socket.

Which, on the Pious's 2-miles-from-1.5kWh, is a bit under 50 miles.


I am not talking about a Pious. Its a total abortion. I am talking a
bout a proper BEV that doesn't have to carry a silly engine, a
generator, and a complex drive system to couple the lot to an electric
motor, and a pig heavy nickel battery that self discharges in a month or
two, shoehorned into conventional and extremely heavy and poorly
performing conventional 'bent tin' car




Hardest one is on street unregualated parking. Poeple will have to
find sopmewhere else to park their cars overnight. Oh dear. What a
shame.

Congratulations, you've just waved your hand and removed a very large
percentage of urban residents from the equation.

If only it were that simple ;-)

grin

Your estate agent will specify house electrical capacity and off street
charging points as part of the literature, and houses which have neither
will not sell well.

Back to where we were decades ago - private transport was only for the
wealthy.



That may actually be not such a bad way to go.But I dont think it will
pan out that way.



And where's all this extra electricity coming from, anyway?

About 70 nuclear power stations by my reckoning, and a 3:1 upsize in
the the grid overall.

Quite.

So? that is not half as lunatic as other greenwash ******** that is
propounded.

Indeed not. That's not what I was meaning. It's a realistic assumption,
which nicely illustrates the fact that it's physically impossible and
would be political suicide for any government.


Its neither actually.

Howver tht would happen over a couple of decades progressively

Oh, well, that's OK then... Just remind me of the timescales being
talked about for the couple of nuclear power stations we might one day
get round to building? Then, of course, there's the political
implications of building even those couple, let alone 70 more...

when its costing you a quid a mile to run the diesel and 2p for the
electric, its amazing how fast peoples objections will disappear...

IIRC the timescale for nuclear power station building is as much down to
the availability of the boys who can do it as planning laws.

standard designs exist than can be constructed pretty quickly. Most of
te power station is tsandard stugg downstream of the steam boiler. Its
only upstream that its 'nuclear'. The CANDU - the French PWR. I think
there is a German design as well. The major lag these days is in planning.

Very little of it requires specialised knowledge, just the reactor
itself, and the way teh radioactive materials are handled. The latter is
common practice in other industries that use radioactive stuff. So
really its only the reactor and primary heat exchangers that are 'unusual'.





..even to maybe coal fired stations.

wince

A 5000 mile a year driver is probably going to save about a grand on
motoring costs by going electric. £750 on fuel and about £150 on the
service. Oh and there are tax implications too IIRC. Whether the battery
depreciation will match IC car depreciation is a moot point, but at
least with a battery car a second hand model probably is fixable with
just one thing - a reconditioned battery - rather then the zillion
little things that can go badly wrong with an IC car.

Given that the only inherent mechanical difference between a battery
electric car and an IC car is the removal of the nice reliable engine and
gearbox and replacement with an electric motor and battery pack, you'll
find that the "zillion little things that can go badly wrong" (which,
these days, are mainly in the multiplexed electronics and safety systems)
are still there in exactly the same form. Very few cars are scrapped
because of terminal engine or transmission wear.

No they are scrapped because they aren't fashionable and its cheaper to
plonk a deposit on a new one than pay someone to fix them. There's a lot
MORE to fix IN them. There must be 50-60 bearings alone in the average
power train. That becomes probably no more than 8 in an electric. There
are a plethora of tubes and pipes carrying liquids everywhere. Ther
would be - apart from the screenwasher and possibly brakes and power
steering, no liquids. There are already TWO fairly massive electric
motors in a car - the starter and the alternator. They are relatively
reliable compared with the rest. There are about 15 sensors in the
average car, four or more spark plugs or injectors,. None of THAT is
needed. No oil filters, no oil pump. No water pump. No starter motor. No
alternator. No distributor. No camshaft, valves, cambelt. No turbo
charger No air filter.No catalytic exhaust,with its mounting rubbers and
corrosion problems. Possibly no hydraulics either. Just a big pack and
a fan, 4 electric motors and a lot of electronics. Probably no separate
gauges either. Just an LCD screen with everything on it. Yea even up to
rearward facing CCTV for parking. Probably no gear lever either. Just a
switch for forwards, backwards, and stop. Maybe lo and Hi. Instead of an
engine management computer, you have a battery management computer - or
suite of them probably - integrated with the pack. And a drive computer
coupled to the pedals and the motor control pack.


When you look at it all that a current car has that a BEV needs are
suspension and steering and wheels. The rest apart from passnenger toys,
is simply thrown away.

We meed an Issigonis to re-desing the whole car from the ground up
basically, but it will work all right.




OTOH, there was an example of one of the few recent "realistic" battery
electric production vehicles on fleaBay a year or two back - a Berlingo
electric van. Only about 4-5yo, and low mileage, an equivalent diesel van
would have been worth several thousand pounds, probably about 40% of the
value of a new one.

Ther have not been any *realistic* BEVs produced to date in more than
tens of units. The T-zero is about the only one thats in any sort of
production and that is restricted to California, as they are the only
people who can fix it if the somewhat new technology breaks. Ther IS no
history - yet - to guide us.



The electric didn't sell, at a very low opening price of a couple of
hundred quid, despite having been considerably more expensive new. Why?
Because it "only" needed a new battery pack - the parts for which were/
are available, but cost around twice the price of a NEW diesel Berlingo.
I have no doubt that it was eventually broken for the many bits common
with the diesel.

exactly. Low volume, wrong battery technology, and too heavy anyway to
be worth having. Thats the HISTORY of electric cars. Its not the future.

Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:


Rail travel is not conspicuously greener* than car travel in the first
place so adding the dead weight of a car to the equation would kill any
potential saving.

*Rail travel is on a par per passenger with an average car with two
aboard.


That depends on how your railway is powerd: if it electric and not from
fossil fuel, its 100% greener..

That't a very big if.

its actually not an 'if' its a 'when'.

Fuel prices wont get lower, so other ways to generate will become cost
effective. Period. In fact they already are. Even *windmills* at current
prices are nearing break even, with fuel..

Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

But what?

Electric cars from non fossil generated electricity will cut both carbon
and other emissions?
Yes but switching to diesel saves precious little.

It probably saves about 30%.

It won't save more than about 25% at best.

It is a gross
exaggeration to claim that switching to diesel has "dramatically brought
down" fuel consumption let alone carbon consumption and with the price
disparity these days the economic benefit is looking a bit thin as well.


Well it depends on what you call 'dramatic' - i'd say that 30% on mpg
and nearly that on CO2*, is significant, but not dramatic.

Certainly significant in terms of fuel consumption even though your 30%
is OTT but your "nearly that on CO2" is way out.

The economic benefit is (now) stripped away almost entirely by the high
cost of diesel.

* diesel having less hydrogen to carbon ratio, is somewhat nearer to
coal than to gas..petrol tends in the other direction. Though additives
lower it again.

I had in mind a figure of 20% difference for the carbon content. I
cannot now find the source of that figure and an authoritative Merkin
source would have it that a (US) gallon of petrol produces 19.4 lbs of
CO2 with the figure for diesel 22.2. That difference is also certainly
significant and by my reckoning would reduce the possible maximum
difference from 25% to 14%.


well I won't totally quibble. I had it in mind that a part throttle
diesel beat petrol by about 30% on mpg and about 20% on CO2. You say it
might be nearer 20% and 14%. 'Significant, but not dramatic' is probably
applicable to both cases.

The Luggage wrote:
On 27 May, 15:23, "dennis@home" wrote:

Do you want to see the results of my MOT?
Particulates are so low they can't be measured
...

While the engine is running at full revs under no load. Exactly the
situation an engine finds itelf in most of the time. Not.

The MOT diesel particulates test is a joke. Until last year, I owned a
1993 vintage diesel Fiesta. It threw out plently of smoke under 'hard'
acceleration, but it passed the emissions test with flying colours, at
about 1/10 the permitted limit.


Yup. when te turbo hose split op the freelander. LOADS of black smoke.
Its not bad when running freely under light load, but push any non blown
diesel hard, and it will soot up badly. Blown is better, but even there,
you are shoving excess fuel in to get the peak power and that lowers the
oxygen:fuel ratio and soot results. Of course thats solid carbon, not
CO2 ;-)






TL

Richard Torrens wrote:
In article et,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:55:09 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

200 miles is a very large threshold. I'd use 50 miles as where "long
distance" starts.

Depends where you live. 50 miles is barely enough for our weekly
shopping run, the monthly one is 100 miles...

And how well does an electric car cope with altitude changes?

Properly designed, an electric car will have regen braking. This will
recover a significant amount of the potential energy when you go down hill.

Provided, of course, you don't use the brake pedal!

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.

Again..'significant' is a fairly moveable feast..But every little helps
to get more range out of the car.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Rod wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html

But how do you heat an electric car? Not much fun using a totally
unheated behicle in the winter. Even keeping the screens clear becomes a
bit of a problem.


Electric heaters, plus recirculating the odd few hundred watts that does
come off the battery pack. And maybe the motors. You don't need much more
than a couple of hundred watts to heat a decently insulated car.


Lets think this through..

electric cars are at their best for shortish trips in heavy traffic..

under these conditions they don't generate much heat..

Electric cars don't generate enough heat if they are used in heavy traffic
AFICS.

Electric cars will not cut emissions. When batteries are being charged they
give off an explosive vapour. This also contains particles of the battery
which is very harmful. The green people should look at the complete scene
not just a little part which seems to suit them. Try visiting a place where
they have a fleet of electric vehicles and visit the battery charging shop.
If we do go over to electric vehicles a lot of people will get killed or
injured because people don't hear them coming. I know that from working at
Gatwick where they had a large fleet although that was years ago. Do not
forget all the factories that will be needed to make these motive power
batteries and then all the extra power stations and how will they be
powered?
Also people pushing for hydrogen power should be made to watch the film of
the Hindenburg disaster.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

But what?

Electric cars from non fossil generated electricity will cut both
carbon and other emissions?
Yes but switching to diesel saves precious little.

It probably saves about 30%.

It won't save more than about 25% at best.

It is a gross
exaggeration to claim that switching to diesel has "dramatically
brought
down" fuel consumption let alone carbon consumption and with the price
disparity these days the economic benefit is looking a bit thin as
well.


Well it depends on what you call 'dramatic' - i'd say that 30% on mpg
and nearly that on CO2*, is significant, but not dramatic.

Certainly significant in terms of fuel consumption even though your 30%
is OTT but your "nearly that on CO2" is way out.

The economic benefit is (now) stripped away almost entirely by the high
cost of diesel.

* diesel having less hydrogen to carbon ratio, is somewhat nearer to
coal than to gas..petrol tends in the other direction. Though additives
lower it again.

I had in mind a figure of 20% difference for the carbon content. I
cannot now find the source of that figure and an authoritative Merkin
source would have it that a (US) gallon of petrol produces 19.4 lbs of
CO2 with the figure for diesel 22.2. That difference is also certainly
significant and by my reckoning would reduce the possible maximum
difference from 25% to 14%.

well I won't totally quibble. I had it in mind that a part throttle diesel
beat petrol by about 30% on mpg and about 20% on CO2. You say it might be
nearer 20% and 14%. 'Significant, but not dramatic' is probably applicable
to both cases.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f2f081e-2...077b07658.html


hybrid cars are *not* green.. they are an excuse for people to claim they
are green while still burning more fuel than a smaller car does.

That is nonsense. Hint: kerbside emissions.

Hint, they use more fuel per mile, they emit more kerbside emissions.
There is nothing you can say that will change the truth.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

But what?


Electric cars from non fossil generated electricity will cut both
carbon
and other emissions?

Yes but switching to diesel saves precious little.

It probably saves about 30%.

It won't save more than about 25% at best.

That depends on what you are comparing..

I get almost double what the wife gets out of her smaller petrol engined
car.
So I see it as saving lots.

"Roberts" wrote in message
...


Also people pushing for hydrogen power should be made to watch the film of
the Hindenburg disaster.

They should explain where the hydrogen is coming from.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Toby Douglass" wrote
in message om...
wrote:
What they probably mean is that by introducing cleaner diesels (in the
particulate/smog sense) they have persuaded new buyers to pick a diesel
50% of the time, but that market is now saturated and if they want to
further reduce their *carbon* emissions they must look elsewhere than
sell people the better-mpg diesels which have been achieving that goal
so far.

Hasn't diesel caused a huge soot problem? they emit a lot more
particulate matter?


Only the older engines on public transport and lorries.
New cars emit virtually nothing.


But they don't stay new.

But they have to pass the emissions tests or no MOT.
You can't have any smoke on a modern diesel and pass.
I bet your old banger produces more.

"magwitch" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"magwitch" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:41:35 on Tue, 27 May 2008, Roger
remarked:
"Cleaner diesel cars have dramatically brought down average emissions
in
Europe but diesel now accounts for about half of the market and
carmakers are looking elsewhere to cut their emissions."

Now what emissions would they be then?

I thought the article was all about reducing carbon consumption but
...

What they probably mean is that by introducing cleaner diesels (in the
particulate/smog sense) they have persuaded new buyers to pick a diesel
50% of the time, but that market is now saturated and if they want to
further reduce their *carbon* emissions they must look elsewhere than
sell people the better-mpg diesels which have been achieving that goal
so far.

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

Mine does.

Mine doesn't.

So buy a new one that doesn't smoke.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

...

Actually, PV cells can be the whole roof of the car in any climes. But
they don't help very much with heating on a dark winter day in the UK.

They don't help much on an even colder night either.

Nothing to do with temperature ...


No just another barmy idea from someone that "thinks" green.

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?).

Again..'significant' is a fairly moveable feast..But every little helps
to get more range out of the car.

Driving any car for maximum economy requires different techniques.
Maximising an EV's efficiency is different again.

--
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.

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

about 40kg for enough steel to take the torque and vibration of a big
IC engine, and connect the stresses to the suspension pickup points.

How, exactly, were you planning to have this electric car deal with
suspension loadings and collision impacts?

with a minimal torsion box, of which te major part would probably be
integrated with the battery carrier cell.

Thats for the suspension anyway. you only neeed connect the cell to the
whhels..thats the only bit with any mass apart from the passengers.

As far as the passenger cell goes, I'd probbly take a leaf out of racing
practice, and make a roll /side impact cage and some crumple zones, and
encase that with foam plastic and moulded ppalstic panels, for
lightness.

Fine. So why isn't that being done with a _lighter_ internal combustion
drivetrain?

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

Indeed. Its hard to see how a half ton of car can be achieved with just
80kg of power train,. I mean in a 2cV what else is there? theres minimal
body weight, Ok there are a few heavies like cast iron brake drums, but
you can throw those away.

So either its a lot less thgan half a ton, or you have left a lot out of
the power train that is actually in it.

shrug
Pop round some time, and have a look. There's a spare engine and box in
one of the lockups, together with most panels. All I'm missing in spares
is a chassis and 'shell.

"PaulB" wrote in message
...

....

Particulates are so low they can't be measured.

Small enough to pass straight through the nose and into the lungs with no
interference along with way, well that's encouraging then.

And make me cough.

Mary

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Toby Douglass" wrote
in message om...
wrote:
What they probably mean is that by introducing cleaner diesels (in the
particulate/smog sense) they have persuaded new buyers to pick a
diesel
50% of the time, but that market is now saturated and if they want to
further reduce their *carbon* emissions they must look elsewhere than
sell people the better-mpg diesels which have been achieving that goal
so far.

Hasn't diesel caused a huge soot problem? they emit a lot more
particulate matter?


Only the older engines on public transport and lorries.
New cars emit virtually nothing.


But they don't stay new.

But they have to pass the emissions tests or no MOT.
You can't have any smoke on a modern diesel and pass.
I bet your old banger produces more.

Our 'old banger' is serviced and tested. It's the newest car we've ever had.

So saying, I have little faith in the efficiency of emission tests on any
vehicle :-(

We were once stopped by a police spot check. Spouse was worried (he's
terrified of 'authority') and I had to tell him to be quiet or he'd have
been defensive. I smiled nicely and was treated courteously and our
emissions were tested and we were waved on.

Spouse was testy for the rest of the journey.

My attitude was that if there were a problem we should - SHOULD - have it
seen to.

Mary