| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v
Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. One of the many programs I've written over the years to help me in my automotive related business is a spreadsheet which calculates the power and fuel useage a car requires to travel at a given speed. It takes the weight, rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient, works out the wheel bhp and flywheel bhp required at each speed from these and then applies average BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) data for both petrol and diesel engines to calculate the fuel requirement and mpg. You can also enter the price per litre of each fuel and it will calculate the pence per mile fuel use. You can also alter the speed in any of the calculation rows to a new value and it'll tell you how much power you'll need to achieve that top speed and what the fuel consumption would then be. By playing with the car weight and drag data you can find out very quickly what factors affect power requirement and fuel consumption. Basically weight affects rolling resistance which is a big factor at low speed but not at high speed and aerodynamic drag is the reverse. For good economy at low speed you want a low weight vehicle and at high speed a low drag one. Using it you can easily see what is needed to design a genuine 100 mpg car. Low weight, low drag, efficient diesel engine. A 2000 lb car with low rolling resistance tyres, 17 sq ft frontal area, 0.26 Cd drag (same as a Prius) should do 110 mpg at 60 mph and 90 mpg at 70 mph with an efficient diesel engine. For a one or two occupant vehicle this is not a difficult concept to realise. The average hatchback in the 80s weighed less than that and many cars such as the Mini have been much lighter. This morning I've tweaked the program to be more user friendly and added some guidelines for the data inputs for various cars. It's hosted here. http://www.mediafire.com/?zk0mkoj41jx It's an old Dos Borland Quattro format which is what I've used for donkey's years for spreadsheet work cos I'm too set in my ways to use newfangled windows spreadsheets but they should be able to recognise it without any problem. Play with the numbers and you'll see what your actual car ought to be giving in mpg terms. If I enter the data for my Focus (3000 lbs, 0.013 RR, 22 sq ft, 0.33 Cd) I get 38 mpg at 70 mph which is what it actually does. You can then alter those numbers to see how easily we could all be driving small, single user 100 mpg cars if the will were there or if fuel prices went up enough. We don't need hybrids, regenerative braking or any other unusual tactic (not that I'm decrying them) to achieve this. Just common sense, efficient diesel engines, low weight, size and drag. In no more than 5 minutes I could sketch out a small streamlined car that could carry two people and luggage and get them from London to Aberdeen on 5 gallons of fuel for 25 quid. My Focus needs three times that. If you want to move house it won't be the ideal vehicle for you but as most cars only have one person in them for 99% of the time it would do for most of us for general use and commuting. -- Dave Baker |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:47:52 -0000, Dave Baker wrote:
Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. One of the many programs I've written over the years to help me in my automotive related business is a spreadsheet which calculates the power and fuel useage a car requires to travel at a given speed. It takes the weight, rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient, works out the wheel bhp and flywheel bhp required at each speed from these and then applies average BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) data for both petrol and diesel engines to calculate the fuel requirement and mpg. You can also enter the price per litre of each fuel and it will calculate the pence per mile fuel use. You can also alter the speed in any of the calculation rows to a new value and it'll tell you how much power you'll need to achieve that top speed and what the fuel consumption would then be. By playing with the car weight and drag data you can find out very quickly what factors affect power requirement and fuel consumption. Basically weight affects rolling resistance which is a big factor at low speed but not at high speed and aerodynamic drag is the reverse. For good economy at low speed you want a low weight vehicle and at high speed a low drag one. Using it you can easily see what is needed to design a genuine 100 mpg car. Low weight, low drag, efficient diesel engine. A 2000 lb car with low rolling resistance tyres, 17 sq ft frontal area, 0.26 Cd drag (same as a Prius) should do 110 mpg at 60 mph and 90 mpg at 70 mph with an efficient diesel engine. For a one or two occupant vehicle this is not a difficult concept to realise. The average hatchback in the 80s weighed less than that and many cars such as the Mini have been much lighter. This morning I've tweaked the program to be more user friendly and added some guidelines for the data inputs for various cars. It's hosted here. http://www.mediafire.com/?zk0mkoj41jx It's an old Dos Borland Quattro format which is what I've used for donkey's years for spreadsheet work cos I'm too set in my ways to use newfangled windows spreadsheets but they should be able to recognise it without any problem. Play with the numbers and you'll see what your actual car ought to be giving in mpg terms. If I enter the data for my Focus (3000 lbs, 0.013 RR, 22 sq ft, 0.33 Cd) I get 38 mpg at 70 mph which is what it actually does. You can then alter those numbers to see how easily we could all be driving small, single user 100 mpg cars if the will were there or if fuel prices went up enough. We don't need hybrids, regenerative braking or any other unusual tactic (not that I'm decrying them) to achieve this. Just common sense, efficient diesel engines, low weight, size and drag. In no more than 5 minutes I could sketch out a small streamlined car that could carry two people and luggage and get them from London to Aberdeen on 5 gallons of fuel for 25 quid. My Focus needs three times that. If you want to move house it won't be the ideal vehicle for you but as most cars only have one person in them for 99% of the time it would do for most of us for general use and commuting. The trouble is that although I may only need to move myself for commuting, I need to transport myself, the wife and kids at other times, trolley(s), diy bits and pieces, shopping, bulky items, etc., so I'd end up having to own two cars. Most people - even singles - sometimes carry a carful and so cars generally need to be big enough for the reasonably common occurences. SteveW |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
Steve Walker wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:47:52 -0000, Dave Baker wrote: Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. One of the many programs I've written over the years to help me in my automotive related business is a spreadsheet which calculates the power and fuel useage a car requires to travel at a given speed. It takes the weight, rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient, works out the wheel bhp and flywheel bhp required at each speed from these and then applies average BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) data for both petrol and diesel engines to calculate the fuel requirement and mpg. You can also enter the price per litre of each fuel and it will calculate the pence per mile fuel use. You can also alter the speed in any of the calculation rows to a new value and it'll tell you how much power you'll need to achieve that top speed and what the fuel consumption would then be. By playing with the car weight and drag data you can find out very quickly what factors affect power requirement and fuel consumption. Basically weight affects rolling resistance which is a big factor at low speed but not at high speed and aerodynamic drag is the reverse. For good economy at low speed you want a low weight vehicle and at high speed a low drag one. Using it you can easily see what is needed to design a genuine 100 mpg car. Low weight, low drag, efficient diesel engine. A 2000 lb car with low rolling resistance tyres, 17 sq ft frontal area, 0.26 Cd drag (same as a Prius) should do 110 mpg at 60 mph and 90 mpg at 70 mph with an efficient diesel engine. For a one or two occupant vehicle this is not a difficult concept to realise. The average hatchback in the 80s weighed less than that and many cars such as the Mini have been much lighter. This morning I've tweaked the program to be more user friendly and added some guidelines for the data inputs for various cars. It's hosted here. http://www.mediafire.com/?zk0mkoj41jx It's an old Dos Borland Quattro format which is what I've used for donkey's years for spreadsheet work cos I'm too set in my ways to use newfangled windows spreadsheets but they should be able to recognise it without any problem. Play with the numbers and you'll see what your actual car ought to be giving in mpg terms. If I enter the data for my Focus (3000 lbs, 0.013 RR, 22 sq ft, 0.33 Cd) I get 38 mpg at 70 mph which is what it actually does. You can then alter those numbers to see how easily we could all be driving small, single user 100 mpg cars if the will were there or if fuel prices went up enough. We don't need hybrids, regenerative braking or any other unusual tactic (not that I'm decrying them) to achieve this. Just common sense, efficient diesel engines, low weight, size and drag. In no more than 5 minutes I could sketch out a small streamlined car that could carry two people and luggage and get them from London to Aberdeen on 5 gallons of fuel for 25 quid. My Focus needs three times that. If you want to move house it won't be the ideal vehicle for you but as most cars only have one person in them for 99% of the time it would do for most of us for general use and commuting. The trouble is that although I may only need to move myself for commuting, I need to transport myself, the wife and kids at other times, trolley(s), diy bits and pieces, shopping, bulky items, etc., so I'd end up having to own two cars. Most people - even singles - sometimes carry a carful and so cars generally need to be big enough for the reasonably common occurences. SteveW The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. This could be solved by using them on separate roadways, protected by steel barriers from the big cars/trucks. Fuel efficiency is just one of several advantages - purchase cost, road congestion gone, far fewer pedestrian fatalities, parking space problems solved, etc. And greater safety and much lower cost means more people could afford them, leading to more job and business opportunities etc. They're a win win win win win option as long as theyre kept away from the big cars. Re Cd, no sane person would drive a microcar at high speed. But 40mph max is more than enough to go round towns & cities. NT |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
|
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. It is pointless I agree, as the Prius is clearly the future and the best by far. Swishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh We don't need hybrids, regenerative braking or any other unusual tactic (not that I'm decrying them) to achieve this. Thank God you don't design cars!!! |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. SNIP http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/LN_T25.html http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Green-C...irst-pictures/ Not a Diesel. And I think he knows what he is talking about. Baz |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
On 28 Jan, 14:55, Steve Walker wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:47:52 -0000, Dave Baker wrote: Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v We don't need hybrids, regenerative braking or any other unusual tactic (not that I'm decrying them) to achieve this. Just common sense, efficient diesel engines, low weight, size and drag. SteveW- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree we don't need Hybrids .. what we need is an escalation by HMgov to roll out Hydrogen fuel refill points. The Hydrogen fuelled car with no batteries is the single most important invention for the automotive industry. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-cla...fcx-works.aspx Honda has it in production and the sooner it reaches UK the better .... ZERO emissions .... fuel produced by simple electrolysis of water - which can be easy & cheap, no expensive & heavy batteries to run out. If the tree huggers want to be really good, via wind wave or whatever. I'd be happy with it coming form a Nuclear Plant. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article , Adrian
scribeth thus gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. Not at all. You seem to be completely forgetting about things like the Smart and various superminis. Bu**ered if I'd have one nothing quite like a good Six feet of metal in front of U;) -- Tony Sayer |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Osprey" wrote in message ... I agree we don't need Hybrids .. what we need is an escalation by HMgov to roll out Hydrogen fuel refill points. The Hydrogen fuelled car with no batteries is the single most important invention for the automotive industry. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-cla...fcx-works.aspx The Honda is a hybrid. Where do we get the hydrogen? Where do we store the stuff? The reliability of the fuel cell? OK that can be overcome in time. The idea I like but it is the fuel that is the problem. Honda has it in production and the sooner it reaches UK the better .... ZERO emissions .... Production? Where can we buy one? fuel produced by simple electrolysis of water - which can be easy & cheap, no expensive & heavy batteries to run out. It has a large battery set as it is electric drive. There is nothing so simple as an all EV car. And when supercapacitors improve more, then they will sing. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Baz" wrote in message ... "Dave Baker" wrote in message ... Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. SNIP http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/LN_T25.html http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Green-C...irst-pictures/ Not a Diesel. And I think he knows what he is talking about. A 3-cylinder petrol engine. Nothing special there. What has to be revolutionary is the propulsion unit, and this is not, just an old IC crock. Although he says there is space for a fuel cell. Skoda could say that as well. Looks like another Smart. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote: I agree we don't need Hybrids .. what we need is an escalation by HMgov to roll out Hydrogen fuel refill points. The Hydrogen fuelled car with no batteries is the single most important invention for the automotive industry. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-cla...fcx-works.aspx The Honda is a hybrid. Hybrid? Depends how you define that I guess - it certainly doesn't use any petrol. Where do we get the hydrogen? Same argument for LPG - it'll become common I suspect Where do we store the stuff? Much like lpg... storage of hydrogen isn't a really a problem The reliability of the fuel cell? OK that can be overcome in time. Not sure that's a major issue... how reliable are batteries in a prius? Honda has it in production and the sooner it reaches UK the better .... ZERO emissions .... Production? Where can we buy one? Southern California IIRC IMO, hybrids are a bodge - fuel cells seem radical enough change that they might just be the answer... Darren |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. It is pointless I agree, as the Prius is clearly the future and the best by far. Swishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I think you meant ... Whoooossshhh! Thank God you don't design cars!!! Thank God none of our buying decisions will be based on your drivel. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
wrote in message ... The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. The microcar concept is a million miles from what I'm contemplating here. Making cars very small and very short is counterproductive in most respects. Safety, luggage capacity and very importantly it makes it impossible to generate a low drag shape. It's nice to have low weight but it's not the major issue, or at least not worth taking to extremes, especially if you have regenerative braking (RB). The main issues are frontal area and Cd. So what we need are low, long, narrow streamlined cars where's still plenty of metal between the passengers and whatever they might hit at each end. The Prius actually has many things close to right. It has a very low Cd by virtue of length and careful streamlining. What it doesn't have right is frontal area and weight although the RB counteracts much of the downside of the latter. But, and it's a big but, if the car is heavy the performance is crap unless the engine is large and that kills low speed consumption because the engine isn't working efficiently and has high internal friction. 2000 lbs is not an extreme weight reduction measure. As I said it was a perfectly normal weight before cars got bloated with safety features. With modern materials that's plenty to build a decent sized car with but it must have a lower frontal area than normal to get best consumption. My target as I said was 2000 lbs, 17 sq ft and Cd of 0.26. That frontal area only means the car being about 10% narrower and 10% lower than a Prius. Just a few inches in each dimension. 21 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 17 Now you leave it comparitively long, say normal saloon car length, to preserve luggage and passenger capacity and help with streamlining. It would look a little unusual in its proportions but not unduly so. I can easily conceive of a car weighing much less than 2000 lbs with modern materials but it's not necessary to go that far. Packaging could perhaps be a driver in the front with luggage space to his left, two passengers behind him, maybe two child seats behind those as an option and the boot space behind that with the spare seats easily removeable to create a van/estate car. More innovative would be to have the drivetrain to the left of the driver and more luggage space in the long streamlined nose/crumple zone as well as in the rear. Engine could be something like a 70 bhp diesel which would give adequate if not sparkling performance due to the low weight. 0-60 mph in 12 seconds. A 90 bhp engine would drop that to 9 seconds which is starting to get reasonably nippy. This not a city car concept. It's an open road tourer capable of going long distances with very low fuel consumption. Travel in cities is best dealt with by other means - electric cars, small cars with RB and public transport. Top speed would be about 110 mph, a five gallon tank would take you from London to Aberdeen. -- Dave Baker |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article ,
Adrian wrote: Where do we store the stuff? Much like lpg... storage of hydrogen isn't a really a problem splutter It certainly is. Well, ok - maybe it's not *quite* that simple :-). It still seems to me the most promising way of getting away from petrol/diesel in the near(ish) future. Someone just needs to work out a way of producing and distributing hydrogen slush like they use on the shuttle :-) Darren |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Dave Baker" wrote:
The microcar concept is a million miles from what I'm contemplating here. Making cars very small and very short is counterproductive in most respects. Safety, luggage capacity and very importantly it makes it impossible to generate a low drag shape. Low drag is completely irrelevant when driving at town speeds. No-one is suggesting that a microcar is suitable for anything other than low speed, short distance use. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
|
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:45:40 +0000, Osprey wrote
(in article ): Honda has it in production and the sooner it reaches UK the better .... ZERO emissions .... fuel produced by simple electrolysis of water - which can be easy & cheap And where do you think the electricity to power your "simple electrolysis" is produced? In power stations of course. And where is the energy coming from to fuel your power stations? Yet more hydrogen? The hydrogen fuel cell solves no energy problems. -- Mike Lane UK North Yorkshire |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"dmc" wrote in message ... In article , Doctor Drivel wrote: I agree we don't need Hybrids .. what we need is an escalation by HMgov to roll out Hydrogen fuel refill points. The Hydrogen fuelled car with no batteries is the single most important invention for the automotive industry. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-cla...fcx-works.aspx The Honda is a hybrid. Hybrid? Depends how you define that I guess - it certainly doesn't use any petrol. Fuel = hydrogen propulsion = electric motor Energy storage = battery Energy conversion = fuel cell Hybrid it is. Much like lpg... storage of hydrogen isn't a really a problem It is highly volatile The reliability of the fuel cell? OK that can be overcome in time. Not sure that's a major issue... how reliable are batteries in a prius? 8 year guarantee expected average life = 12 yrs. This Honda has a battery pack too. Honda has it in production and the sooner it reaches UK the better .... ZERO emissions .... Production? Where can we buy one? Southern California IIRC Not that know of. IMO, hybrids are a bodge - fuel cells seem radical enough change that they might just be the answer... The biggest bodge is attempting to make a an agricultural oil burning engine perform like a petrol engine using all sorts of crap around it. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Bruce" wrote in message ... Thank God none of our buying decisions will be based on your drivel. I am DR Drivel, I recognise drivel when I see it. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
dmc wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel wrote: Where do we get the hydrogen? Same argument for LPG - it'll become common I suspect LPG comes out of the ground. Hydrogen has to be made - typically from natural gas... Andy |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article ,
Bruce wrote: Currently hydrogen is produced using electricity, over 80% of which is generated by burning fossil fuels - therefore generating lots of CO2. Honda say: "CO2 emissions related to the production of hydrogen vary by source; however, well-to-wheel CO2 emissions using hydrogen reformed from natural gas - the most widely used method of production today - are less than half that of a conventional petrol vehicle. With the production of hydrogen from water by electrolysis, CO2 emissions can be further reduced and ultimately approach zero if the electricity is generated from sustainable sources, such as solar, wind, hydro and wave power." which sounds fantastic - but then it would from them wouldn't it :) Interesting they don't mention nuclear as an option... The 5,000-psi hydrogen storage tank is slightly scary as well - but then everyone driving around with a plastic tank containing 10 gallons of petrol is scary I guess.. It is difficult to think of anything more pointless at this time than a hydrogen fuel cell powered car. That will change when we have a lot more power generated by nuclear and renewables. But that won't be for at least another 15 years. I can't really see prius type hybrids making massive gains either. I know two people who bought a prius. Neither have them now :-) Darren |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
dmc wrote:
I can't really see prius type hybrids making massive gains either. I know two people who bought a prius. Neither have them now :-) Drivel. (or doesn't he count?) I was just thinking about it, and apart from anything else I'm really not sure I want a car that's optimised for being stopped in traffic... Andy |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
|
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. The microcar concept is a million miles from what I'm contemplating here. Making cars very small and very short is counterproductive in most respects. Safety, luggage capacity and very importantly it makes it impossible to generate a low drag shape. It's nice to have low weight but it's not the major issue, or at least not worth taking to extremes, especially if you have regenerative braking (RB). The main issues are frontal area and Cd. So what we need are low, long, narrow streamlined cars where's still plenty of metal between the passengers and whatever they might hit at each end. The Prius actually has many things close to right. It has a very low Cd by virtue of length and careful streamlining. What it doesn't have right is frontal area and weight although the RB counteracts much of the downside of the latter. But, and it's a big but, if the car is heavy the performance is crap unless the engine is large and that kills low speed consumption because the engine isn't working efficiently and has high internal friction. 2000 lbs is not an extreme weight reduction measure. As I said it was a perfectly normal weight before cars got bloated with safety features. With modern materials that's plenty to build a decent sized car with but it must have a lower frontal area than normal to get best consumption. My target as I said was 2000 lbs, 17 sq ft and Cd of 0.26. That frontal area only means the car being about 10% narrower and 10% lower than a Prius. Just a few inches in each dimension. 21 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 17 Now you leave it comparitively long, say normal saloon car length, to preserve luggage and passenger capacity and help with streamlining. It would look a little unusual in its proportions but not unduly so. I can easily conceive of a car weighing much less than 2000 lbs with modern materials but it's not necessary to go that far. Packaging could perhaps be a driver in the front with luggage space to his left, two passengers behind him, maybe two child seats behind those as an option and the boot space behind that with the spare seats easily removeable to create a van/estate car. More innovative would be to have the drivetrain to the left of the driver and more luggage space in the long streamlined nose/crumple zone as well as in the rear. Engine could be something like a 70 bhp diesel which would give adequate if not sparkling performance due to the low weight. 0-60 mph in 12 seconds. A 90 bhp engine would drop that to 9 seconds which is starting to get reasonably nippy. This not a city car concept. It's an open road tourer capable of going long distances with very low fuel consumption. Travel in cities is best dealt with by other means - electric cars, small cars with RB and public transport. Top speed would be about 110 mph, a five gallon tank would take you from London to Aberdeen. You have just designed a Vauxhall Astra. 8-) |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message .. . Thank God none of our buying decisions will be based on your drivel. I am DR Drivel, I recognise drivel when I see it. .... when you look in the mirror. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote: dmc wrote: I can't really see prius type hybrids making massive gains either. I know two people who bought a prius. Neither have them now :-) Drivel. (or doesn't he count?) Ah, of course. Make that 3 people then. Two of which have a brain and have got rid of them... Dunno if Drivel still has his (assuming he actually had one and hadn't just sent off for the brochure). I was just thinking about it, and apart from anything else I'm really not sure I want a car that's optimised for being stopped in traffic... I dunno. Would be quite handy for my commute in Canterbury :-( Darren |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote: "dmc" wrote in message ... In article , Doctor Drivel wrote: 8 year guarantee expected average life = 12 yrs. Or 100k miles isn't it?...that's less than 8 years for many people Production? Where can we buy one? Southern California IIRC Not that know of. No, you are correct - it is only available for lease apparantly (at "only" 300 quid a month) Darren |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"dmc" wrote in message ... The 5,000-psi hydrogen storage tank is slightly scary as well - but then everyone driving around with a plastic tank containing 10 gallons of petrol is scary I guess.. If you get a hydrogen leak you end up breathing it in.. its not toxic but should you see a hydrogen fire travelling towards you at high speed you had better keep you mouth shut. It is difficult to think of anything more pointless at this time than a hydrogen fuel cell powered car. That will change when we have a lot more power generated by nuclear and renewables. But that won't be for at least another 15 years. I can't really see prius type hybrids making massive gains either. I know two people who bought a prius. Neither have them now :-) Any person that wanted to make a difference would buy a smaller car. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
Dave Baker wrote:
Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. One of the many programs I've written over the years to help me in my automotive related business is a spreadsheet which calculates the power and fuel useage a car requires to travel at a given speed. It takes the weight, rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient, works out the wheel bhp and flywheel bhp required at each speed from these and then applies average BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) data for both petrol and diesel engines to calculate the fuel requirement and mpg. You can also enter the price per litre of each fuel and it will calculate the pence per mile fuel use. You can also alter the speed in any of the calculation rows to a new value and it'll tell you how much power you'll need to achieve that top speed and what the fuel consumption would then be. By playing with the car weight and drag data you can find out very quickly what factors affect power requirement and fuel consumption. Basically weight affects rolling resistance which is a big factor at low speed but not at high speed and aerodynamic drag is the reverse. For good economy at low speed you want a low weight vehicle and at high speed a low drag one. Using it you can easily see what is needed to design a genuine 100 mpg car. Low weight, low drag, efficient diesel engine. A 2000 lb car with low rolling resistance tyres, 17 sq ft frontal area, 0.26 Cd drag (same as a Prius) should do 110 mpg at 60 mph and 90 mpg at 70 mph with an efficient diesel engine. For a one or two occupant vehicle this is not a difficult concept to realise. The average hatchback in the 80s weighed less than that and many cars such as the Mini have been much lighter. This morning I've tweaked the program to be more user friendly and added some guidelines for the data inputs for various cars. It's hosted here. http://www.mediafire.com/?zk0mkoj41jx well after a minute of 100% CPU use when I hit that page, and still unable to download, I think I'll give it a miss, thanks I take it its some 'green' site designed to burn CPU cycles instead of carbon? |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
Steve Walker wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:47:52 -0000, Dave Baker wrote: Rather than it get lost in the pointless drivel (dribble?) in the Petrol v Diesel (Prius) squabble I'll start this new thread. One of the many programs I've written over the years to help me in my automotive related business is a spreadsheet which calculates the power and fuel useage a car requires to travel at a given speed. It takes the weight, rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient, works out the wheel bhp and flywheel bhp required at each speed from these and then applies average BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) data for both petrol and diesel engines to calculate the fuel requirement and mpg. You can also enter the price per litre of each fuel and it will calculate the pence per mile fuel use. You can also alter the speed in any of the calculation rows to a new value and it'll tell you how much power you'll need to achieve that top speed and what the fuel consumption would then be. By playing with the car weight and drag data you can find out very quickly what factors affect power requirement and fuel consumption. Basically weight affects rolling resistance which is a big factor at low speed but not at high speed and aerodynamic drag is the reverse. For good economy at low speed you want a low weight vehicle and at high speed a low drag one. Using it you can easily see what is needed to design a genuine 100 mpg car. Low weight, low drag, efficient diesel engine. A 2000 lb car with low rolling resistance tyres, 17 sq ft frontal area, 0.26 Cd drag (same as a Prius) should do 110 mpg at 60 mph and 90 mpg at 70 mph with an efficient diesel engine. For a one or two occupant vehicle this is not a difficult concept to realise. The average hatchback in the 80s weighed less than that and many cars such as the Mini have been much lighter. This morning I've tweaked the program to be more user friendly and added some guidelines for the data inputs for various cars. It's hosted here. http://www.mediafire.com/?zk0mkoj41jx Ok, having force quitted Firefox, be aware that this site has a nasty scam on it. Ther is a flash advert that detects your machine and says 'is your (PC/MAC) running slow' and invites you to spend money to make it go faster. In fact the code in that advert, is deliberately designed to slow your machine to a crawl. I am sure this quattro file is fine, but I will NOT use that website. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:47:52 -0000, "Dave Baker"
wrote: http://www.mediafire.com/?zk0mkoj41jx It's an old Dos Borland Quattro format which is what I've used for donkey's years for spreadsheet work cos I'm too set in my ways to use newfangled windows spreadsheets but they should be able to recognise it without any problem. It's unreadable with the latest version of OpenOffice and also with Lotus 123R5 dating back to 1994 that usually copes with everything else. While there are a number of free converter programs for this format they all seem to be limited to a very low number of lines and half a spreadsheet is useless. Have you considered using paper tape or a Sinclair Spectrum cassette as they are probably more compatible with modern computers? :) -- |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
|
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In message , Mike
writes On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:28:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. eh? They were around in the 50's and 60's, mainly abominations and they were hardly popular. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. If the Smart 2 seater isn't a practical, safe, microcar then what is? I know I'd sooner be in a crash in one of those than in a 1960's Mini or anything of the same era and size produced by Fiat or Renault or Citroen. I wonder what dennis drives ... -- geoff |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"geoff" wrote in message ... In message , Mike writes On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:28:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. eh? They were around in the 50's and 60's, mainly abominations and they were hardly popular. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. If the Smart 2 seater isn't a practical, safe, microcar then what is? I know I'd sooner be in a crash in one of those than in a 1960's Mini or anything of the same era and size produced by Fiat or Renault or Citroen. I wonder what dennis drives ... Astra 1.7 CDT, Corsa 1.2 or a smart depending on what I am doing and who got there first. The Astra always goes first and I spend a lot of time in the Smart. It uses more fuel than the Astra BTW. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article
, Osprey wrote: Honda has it in production and the sooner it reaches UK the better .... ZERO emissions .... fuel produced by simple electrolysis of water - which can be easy & cheap, no expensive & heavy batteries to run out. Nice thought, but electrolysis isn't a particularly efficient use of energy. -- *Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?" Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
In article ,
Mike wrote: The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. eh? They were around in the 50's and 60's, mainly abominations and they were hardly popular. They were fairly popular with those wanting to 'upgrade' from a motorbike who couldn't afford a proper car. They were very much cheaper new than a new small car - unlike the Smart. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. No worse than a motorbike. If the Smart 2 seater isn't a practical, safe, microcar then what is? I know I'd sooner be in a crash in one of those than in a 1960's Mini or anything of the same era and size produced by Fiat or Renault or Citroen. Indeed. -- *Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mike wrote: The microcar concept was done to death in britain, they were popular for many decades, but no more. eh? They were around in the 50's and 60's, mainly abominations and they were hardly popular. They were fairly popular with those wanting to 'upgrade' from a motorbike who couldn't afford a proper car. They were very much cheaper new than a new small car - unlike the Smart. The passenger question isnt really an issue, one can build cars for any number of people far smaller than what we have on the road today. The biggest issue that kills microcars is safety. No worse than a motorbike. Exactly... If the Smart 2 seater isn't a practical, safe, microcar then what is? I know I'd sooner be in a crash in one of those than in a 1960's Mini or anything of the same era and size produced by Fiat or Renault or Citroen. Indeed. I'd rather not be in a Smart at all. |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message . .. Thank God none of our buying decisions will be based on your drivel. I am DR Drivel, I recognise drivel when I see it. ... when you look in the mirror. Have you been invited top the their meet? |
Car fuel consumption spreadsheet
"Andy Champ" wrote in message . uk... dmc wrote: I can't really see prius type hybrids making massive gains either. I know two people who bought a prius. Neither have them now :-) Drivel. I have mine and I like the Mk 3 just come out. Fantastic!!!! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter