"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
What a plonker. Boy racers regularly burnt out the shafts on 850s.

It was the CV joints - I know, I was there. A mate of mine was so used
to doing them on his rally car he reckoned about ten minutes a side or
somesuch.
They were ****, though.

If you up the output of any engine in any car there's the likelihood
transmission components will fail. CV joints are no exception. The gearbox
internals were also replaced with a different design in competition Minis.
Very obvious by the whine as they passed the Jags. ;-)

All Jag drivers whine. I speak from experience.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
What a plonker. Boy racers regularly burnt out the shafts on 850s.

It was the CV joints - I know, I was there. A mate of mine was so used
to doing them on his rally car he reckoned about ten minutes a side or
somesuch.
They were ****, though.

If you up the output of any engine in any car there's the likelihood
transmission components will fail. CV joints are no exception. The gearbox
internals were also replaced with a different design in competition Minis.
Very obvious by the whine as they passed the Jags. ;-)

straight cut box eh? take the punishment but dish it back out in the
audio band..

On Dec 15, 12:06*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message

...











"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Tesco fully synthetic is made by Chevron,
so a good buy and easily
available.

Don't go by maker name or anything else. Check the spec on the
container and make sure it meets/exceeds the requirement for your
engine.

It is the highest spec.

No such thing.

Says on the can 100% Synthetic

"SAE 5W/40
API SM/CF

ACEA A3, B3, B4."

On the API, S mean spark ignition engine, C means Compression Ignition
(Diesel) The next letter is the level of protection, M is the highest for
spank ignition, hence SM. *Only fully synthetics reach SM. M was
introduced about 4 years ago. You may see many SL oils around. *That is
very good, but M is meeting the most stringent of specifications.

SAE 5W/40 means the viscosity.

Note: API have introduced a SN about a year ago. *I am unaware of any
market making oil to this level yet. *It takes time for makers to get
their oils made, tested and approved by API and onto the market.

I see Morrisons are selling two Carlube "fully synthetics". Both are API SN.
Some old stock maybe SM.
The 4w-40 is £20 for 4 litres while the 5w-30 "long life" oil is £22. There
is no reason for no using a fully synthetic.

The narrower banding should mean an absence of viscocity improvers,
this is how synthetic oils should be, as they are then what is termed
shear-stable.


Carlube is independent, not owned by Esso like Comma. They make oil for
Texaco, Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda and all. Carlube is part of the Tetrosyl
group which includes Bluecol, Carplan and a few others.

Many dealers use Carlube in services. *Carlube is excellent oil. Not the
best, liker say Millers, but the quality is there and the price.

If I was choosing today, I'd pay the other £2 and go with the "long
life". Oils without v.i.'s work so much better.

On Dec 15, 12:07*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:23:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"

wrote:
Many BMC boxes used engine oil. Even before the Mini where there was no
option.

Indeed; the Hunter was another engine-oil box.

During the life of the SD1 Rover, the gearbox oil spec was changed from
EP75/80 to ATF.

As does the MT75 box in Fords, iirc.

Also, I have a feeling that the typical 'EP80 or EP90' g'box oils
aren't actually showing the viscosity on the package. I can't be
utterly sure of that, but I observed that EP90 doesn't flow anything
like as thickly as I'd expected and suspect there's something else at
play.

Yes, suspect, hence the reason why the use of straight synthetics has
been recommended for gearbox oil. As £44 for a couple of cans of
the Morrisons stuff is less than a tankful of fuel, where can you go
wrong?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:53:25 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:04:41 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v6gegrjcytk5n5@i7-940...


Would an electric car do that much? (Not without new motors anyway).

Why would contactless motors wear out?



might need new bearings, but really 100,000 miles is not a lot..at 20
mph average its only 5,000 hours - less than a year really.

electric motors that will run for a year without stopping are hardly
rocket science.

More likely failure modes are due to damage

Gearbox?


what gearbox?

It might only be one speed, but isn't there some kind of gearing? Or do the motors always connect directly to the wheels? There must be diffs etc too.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If colouring wasn't added to Coca-Cola, it would be green.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:15 -0000, Tim Downie wrote:

Tim wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:04:41 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

might need new bearings, but really 100,000 miles is not a lot..at
20 mph average its only 5,000 hours - less than a year really.

electric motors that will run for a year without stopping are
hardly rocket science.

More likely failure modes are due to damage
Gearbox?

what gearbox?

I believe the electric Lotus Elise has a two speed gearbox.

Scrub that. Looks like it's only a single speed box.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

That said, I'm sure that Top Gear said it had a two speed box and they could
have been wrong could they?? ;-)

They were correct. Lotus removed it due to it failing all the time.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm ****ing bored!"
Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately!"
Unknown aircraft: "I said I was ****ing bored, not ****ing stupid!"

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:53:25 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:04:41 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v6gegrjcytk5n5@i7-940...


Would an electric car do that much? (Not without new motors anyway).

Why would contactless motors wear out?



might need new bearings, but really 100,000 miles is not a lot..at 20
mph average its only 5,000 hours - less than a year really.

electric motors that will run for a year without stopping are hardly
rocket science.

More likely failure modes are due to damage

Gearbox?


what gearbox?

It might only be one speed, but isn't there some kind of gearing? Or do
the motors always connect directly to the wheels? There must be diffs
etc too.


Oddly enough probably the best way to do a leccy car (if not the
cheapest) is to have a multipole 'pancake' hub motor on each wheel.

In some ways that is in fac cheap as well as there is no transmission:
And ABS style sensing and feedback will stop gross wheelspin on a single
wheel - although due to the way leccy motors work, that does NOT rob
power from the rest.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:15 -0000, Tim Downie
wrote:

Tim wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:04:41 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

might need new bearings, but really 100,000 miles is not a lot..at
20 mph average its only 5,000 hours - less than a year really.

electric motors that will run for a year without stopping are
hardly rocket science.

More likely failure modes are due to damage
Gearbox?

what gearbox?

I believe the electric Lotus Elise has a two speed gearbox.

Scrub that. Looks like it's only a single speed box.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

That said, I'm sure that Top Gear said it had a two speed box and they
could
have been wrong could they?? ;-)

They were correct. Lotus removed it due to it failing all the time.

Low speed high load is not optimal for electric motors so there is some
point in having a box. In the end its a compromise between
efficiencies/weight/complexity etc.

Tesla is rather crude really - a proof of concept in that you can make a
rocket ship of a car with lithium batteries if you don't mind the 100m
range..and the cost

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:02:31 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:53:25 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:04:41 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

might need new bearings, but really 100,000 miles is not a lot..at 20
mph average its only 5,000 hours - less than a year really.

electric motors that will run for a year without stopping are hardly
rocket science.

More likely failure modes are due to damage

Gearbox?


what gearbox?

It might only be one speed, but isn't there some kind of gearing? Or do
the motors always connect directly to the wheels? There must be diffs
etc too.


Oddly enough probably the best way to do a leccy car (if not the
cheapest) is to have a multipole 'pancake' hub motor on each wheel.

In some ways that is in fac cheap as well as there is no transmission:
And ABS style sensing and feedback will stop gross wheelspin on a single
wheel - although due to the way leccy motors work, that does NOT rob
power from the rest.

Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

When you own Llamas... spit happens

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:40 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:15 -0000, Tim Downie
wrote:

Tim wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:



what gearbox?

I believe the electric Lotus Elise has a two speed gearbox.

Scrub that. Looks like it's only a single speed box.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

That said, I'm sure that Top Gear said it had a two speed box and they
could
have been wrong could they?? ;-)

They were correct. Lotus removed it due to it failing all the time.

Low speed high load is not optimal for electric motors so there is some
point in having a box. In the end its a compromise between
efficiencies/weight/complexity etc.

Tesla is rather crude really - a proof of concept in that you can make a
rocket ship of a car with lithium batteries if you don't mind the 100m
range..and the cost

When new battery technology is ready, these things will be worthwhile.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Confuscious say: "If you park, don't drink, accidents cause people."

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:


Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.



Which isn't a good thing as this would be unsprung weight.

Tim

In article op.v6vugvyfytk5n5@i7-940,
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.

Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:02:31 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:53:25 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:04:41 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

might need new bearings, but really 100,000 miles is not a lot..at 20
mph average its only 5,000 hours - less than a year really.

electric motors that will run for a year without stopping are hardly
rocket science.

More likely failure modes are due to damage

Gearbox?


what gearbox?

It might only be one speed, but isn't there some kind of gearing? Or do
the motors always connect directly to the wheels? There must be diffs
etc too.


Oddly enough probably the best way to do a leccy car (if not the
cheapest) is to have a multipole 'pancake' hub motor on each wheel.

In some ways that is in fac cheap as well as there is no transmission:
And ABS style sensing and feedback will stop gross wheelspin on a single
wheel - although due to the way leccy motors work, that does NOT rob
power from the rest.

Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.




Not where you want it though. Sprung weight is preffered.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:40 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:15 -0000, Tim Downie
wrote:

Tim wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:



what gearbox?

I believe the electric Lotus Elise has a two speed gearbox.

Scrub that. Looks like it's only a single speed box.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

That said, I'm sure that Top Gear said it had a two speed box and they
could
have been wrong could they?? ;-)

They were correct. Lotus removed it due to it failing all the time.

Low speed high load is not optimal for electric motors so there is some
point in having a box. In the end its a compromise between
efficiencies/weight/complexity etc.

Tesla is rather crude really - a proof of concept in that you can make a
rocket ship of a car with lithium batteries if you don't mind the 100m
range..and the cost

When new battery technology is ready,

It will be the 27th century and pigs will have evolved wings.


these things will be worthwhile.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article op.v6vugvyfytk5n5@i7-940,
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.

Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Why? Is 100 mph different in an electric car?

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Why? Is 100 mph different in an electric car?

Yes, in that it will only sustain it for a couple of minutes.

Electric cars are all like dribble. Only quote the very best possible
figures and leave out either the normal or worst ones.

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article op.v6vugvyfytk5n5@i7-940,
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.

Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Dave, with respect the actual charcetrsitscs of electric cars show that
its probably THE best ever way to make a 10 minute stage rally car..as
long as you can slap a battery in fresh for each stage.

The ONLY bugbear in BEVs is really batterry weight-capacity and
recharge times.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Why? Is 100 mph different in an electric car?

Yes, in that it will only sustain it for a couple of minutes.

Electric cars are all like dribble. Only quote the very best possible
figures and leave out either the normal or worst ones.

The evolt he has been going on about has a range of about 300 mph.
It is a hybrid with a motor on each wheel.
It will sustain motorway speeds all day as long as you fill the tank.
I would like one but they are 30k after the subsidy.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Why? Is 100 mph different in an electric car?

Yes, in that it will only sustain it for a couple of minutes.

Electric cars are all like dribble. Only quote the very best possible
figures and leave out either the normal or worst ones.

well, it's possible at considerable expense to get about 50KWh into a
battery that weighs about the same as the power train on a normal car.

50Kwh equates to about 5.15 litres of diesel at 100% efficiency, or at
typical road diesel engine efficenicies about 19 liters of diesel. Maybe
more

So very roughly that's 4 gallons of diesel. At 100% efficiency, maybe a
bit more with regenerative braking.

Looks like the original Tesla is around 40Kwh..and the newer sedans up
to 85Kwh.they reckon it recharges at..wait fir it - 65 miles per hour if
you see what I mean.

Now if someone GAVE me a Tesla with - say 150 miles range, overnight
recharge and that was that, I'd take it like a shot.

Paying upwars of £20k plus for a battery that may not last more than a
couple of years PLUS the car cost...is another matter.

In short I would take an electric car like a shot IF the cost were
reasonable. It wouldn't be my ONLY car, but frankly if someone made an
electric 4wD Freelander with 85Kwh battery, guaranteed for 100,000
miles that would fit the current usage I have at less than 20k on the
road, even if fairly basic, it would be my ultimate perfect vehicle.

But if you look at the new S type Tesla you see its aluminium, its very
carefully designed with the battery as the main chassis member, and that
means it wont be stamped out and spot welded anywhere near here soon..

Its a whole new technology and it will take time, and its doubtful if
batteries will EVER match a 20 gallon fuel tank. But if you can cope
with say a 100mile commute trip and that all you do, and the prices come
down fourfold, then they are beginning to make a little sense.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Dave, with respect the actual charcetrsitscs of electric cars show that
its probably THE best ever way to make a 10 minute stage rally car..as
long as you can slap a battery in fresh for each stage.

If I could only get 10 minutes use out of a vehicle before re-fuelling,
I'd walk. Would be much quicker. But my statement holds true. For decent
comfort and handling you want the minimum unsprung weight possible.

The ONLY bugbear in BEVs is really batterry weight-capacity and
recharge times.

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

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

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Electric cars are all like dribble. Only quote the very best possible
figures and leave out either the normal or worst ones.

The evolt he has been going on about has a range of about 300 mph.

300mph range?

It is a hybrid with a motor on each wheel.
It will sustain motorway speeds all day as long as you fill the tank.

So not an electric vehicle.

I would like one but they are 30k after the subsidy.

And there's the rub. Hybrids have been around for a very long time now, in
terms of new technology. And of course it was said they'd soon come down
in price. But they haven't. Look at the costs of say an LCD TV now against
when first introduced. When that sort of ratio happens with hybrids,
they'll have arrived.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Dave, with respect the actual charcetrsitscs of electric cars show that
its probably THE best ever way to make a 10 minute stage rally car..as
long as you can slap a battery in fresh for each stage.

If I could only get 10 minutes use out of a vehicle before re-fuelling,
I'd walk. Would be much quicker. But my statement holds true. For decent
comfort and handling you want the minimum unsprung weight possible.


Correct, but a corelless motor is almost nothing on a wheel, and is
probably no more than the axle would be.If you are looking for 25hp of
leccy motor that's a lot less than the tyre..done the 'light' way anyway.
..




The ONLY bugbear in BEVs is really batterry weight-capacity and
recharge times.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Electric cars are all like dribble. Only quote the very best possible
figures and leave out either the normal or worst ones.

The evolt he has been going on about has a range of about 300 mph.

300mph range?

It is a hybrid with a motor on each wheel.
It will sustain motorway speeds all day as long as you fill the tank.

So not an electric vehicle.

I would like one but they are 30k after the subsidy.

And there's the rub. Hybrids have been around for a very long time now, in
terms of new technology. And of course it was said they'd soon come down
in price. But they haven't. Look at the costs of say an LCD TV now against
when first introduced. When that sort of ratio happens with hybrids,
they'll have arrived.

hybrids are just ecobollox, like windmills. True BEVs are actually not
that bad BUT the price is crippling. No lifetime costs I've done even
WITH the inducements look sane unless you do a lot of city travel and
can blag the parking and zoning benefits.

I think we will see more tesla style cars, but until they get cheaper..I
cant afford the risk.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Electric cars are all like dribble. Only quote the very best possible
figures and leave out either the normal or worst ones.

The evolt he has been going on about has a range of about 300 mph.

300mph range?

Sorry, its those typos again.
Don't tell ARW he will start putting it down in his imaginary book.


It is a hybrid with a motor on each wheel.
It will sustain motorway speeds all day as long as you fill the tank.

So not an electric vehicle.

It is purely electrically driven so yes.
It will do about 50 miles on battery alone.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:44:38 -0000, Tim wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:


Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.



Which isn't a good thing as this would be unsprung weight.

Tim

Good point.

Although how heavy are these pancakes?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

At Sunday school the teacher asked little Johnny, "Do you know where little boys and girls go when they do bad things?"
"Sure," little Johnny replied. "They go out in the back of the church yard."

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:17:41 -0000, dennis@home wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article op.v6vugvyfytk5n5@i7-940,
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.

Unsprung weight makes for poor comfort and handling. Not that either
matters very much on an electric car.

Why? Is 100 mph different in an electric car?

Maybe he was referring to the plethora of crappy electric city cars that only do 40. I wouldn't be seen dead in anything that can't do 100.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Black holes are where god divided by zero.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:14:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:40 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:15 -0000, Tim Downie
wrote:

Tim wrote:






Scrub that. Looks like it's only a single speed box.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

That said, I'm sure that Top Gear said it had a two speed box and they
could
have been wrong could they?? ;-)

They were correct. Lotus removed it due to it failing all the time.

Low speed high load is not optimal for electric motors so there is some
point in having a box. In the end its a compromise between
efficiencies/weight/complexity etc.

Tesla is rather crude really - a proof of concept in that you can make a
rocket ship of a car with lithium batteries if you don't mind the 100m
range..and the cost

When new battery technology is ready,

It will be the 27th century and pigs will have evolved wings.


these things will be worthwhile.

No, there are several technologies in progress.

And how long between NiCd, NiMH and Lithium Ion?


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:14:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:40 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:15 -0000, Tim Downie
wrote:

Tim wrote:






Scrub that. Looks like it's only a single speed box.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

That said, I'm sure that Top Gear said it had a two speed box and
they
could
have been wrong could they?? ;-)

They were correct. Lotus removed it due to it failing all the time.

Low speed high load is not optimal for electric motors so there is some
point in having a box. In the end its a compromise between
efficiencies/weight/complexity etc.

Tesla is rather crude really - a proof of concept in that you can
make a
rocket ship of a car with lithium batteries if you don't mind the 100m
range..and the cost

When new battery technology is ready,

It will be the 27th century and pigs will have evolved wings.


these things will be worthwhile.

No, there are several technologies in progress.

Nope, that makes no ****ing difference.

What is it with you pseudo engineers? 'we will develop materials that
break the laws of physics'?

Lithium is THE best element in the periodic table to make batteries out
of. There isn't enough lithium in the world nor is it good enough really
to do much more than a tesla does. already. A bit better, an lot
cheaper, but that's IT. OK?


Therefore no battery that relies on the Laws of Electrochemsitry can
ever be MUCH better.

Short of nuclear fuel or dark energy THE best energy density in an
oxygen containing atmosphere is actually something very like diesel fuel..


And how long between NiCd, NiMH and Lithium Ion?


they have all always been there.


Lithium is in many ways crap, it has one thing going for it, its the
lightest battery material there is. There are no lighter materials in
the periodic table.

In 5-10 years since I have been messing with them they have got no
better on energy density, if anything the compromises to make them safer
and lower resistance have made them HEAVIER.

We are still looking at nearly a ton for an 85kwh pack and that's only
about 8 gallons worth of fuel

Now look at world lithium resources and multiply one tonne by the number
of cars already in the world...and realise there ain't enough lithium
known in the world to replace all the fuel cars with battery ones.

I wish it weren't true, but Ive done the research and you are just
dreaming pipe dreams and talking ****.

Back in 1500 and something, if he had had a petrol engine, Leonardo da
Vinci could probably have built a viable aircraft.


There is no technology around that promises to deliver light safe
electrical energy storage in high levels whatsoever. Its all a set of
****ing chimeras.

Super capacitors/ as yet undeveloped batteries/ fuel cells ******** blah
blah. If it were that easy we would have done it years ago.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:44:38 -0000, Tim wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:


Puts some weight directly over the wheels too.



Which isn't a good thing as this would be unsprung weight.

Tim

Good point.

Although how heavy are these pancakes?

lighter than a steel axle for many values of 'pancake'


Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:12:46 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:14:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:40 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:







Low speed high load is not optimal for electric motors so there is some
point in having a box. In the end its a compromise between
efficiencies/weight/complexity etc.

Tesla is rather crude really - a proof of concept in that you can
make a
rocket ship of a car with lithium batteries if you don't mind the 100m
range..and the cost

When new battery technology is ready,

It will be the 27th century and pigs will have evolved wings.


these things will be worthwhile.

No, there are several technologies in progress.

Nope, that makes no ****ing difference.

What is it with you pseudo engineers? 'we will develop materials that
break the laws of physics'?

Lithium is THE best element in the periodic table to make batteries out
of. There isn't enough lithium in the world nor is it good enough really
to do much more than a tesla does. already. A bit better, an lot
cheaper, but that's IT. OK?


Therefore no battery that relies on the Laws of Electrochemsitry can
ever be MUCH better.

Short of nuclear fuel or dark energy THE best energy density in an
oxygen containing atmosphere is actually something very like diesel fuel..

Go read up on it - they use a denser structure.

And how long between NiCd, NiMH and Lithium Ion?


they have all always been there.

I meant the time taken to progress from using NiCd to Lithium Ion. Look at very old laptops.

Lithium is in many ways crap, it has one thing going for it, its the
lightest battery material there is. There are no lighter materials in
the periodic table.

In 5-10 years since I have been messing with them they have got no
better on energy density, if anything the compromises to make them safer
and lower resistance have made them HEAVIER.

We are still looking at nearly a ton for an 85kwh pack and that's only
about 8 gallons worth of fuel

Now look at world lithium resources and multiply one tonne by the number
of cars already in the world...and realise there ain't enough lithium
known in the world to replace all the fuel cars with battery ones.

I wish it weren't true, but Ive done the research and you are just
dreaming pipe dreams and talking ****.

We might not use lithium. Go do some research before sounding like a complete ****t (which you do regularly in here - and it's not just me that's noticed this).

Back in 1500 and something, if he had had a petrol engine, Leonardo da
Vinci could probably have built a viable aircraft.


There is no technology around that promises to deliver light safe
electrical energy storage in high levels whatsoever. Its all a set of
****ing chimeras.

Super capacitors/ as yet undeveloped batteries/ fuel cells ******** blah
blah. If it were that easy we would have done it years ago.

What a stupid thing to say. I never said it was easy, I said we are almost there.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Viagra Lite
For people who only want to masturbate

Viagrallium
A mix of Viagra and Vallium: if you don't get to ****, then you don't give a ****.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:12:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

There is no technology around that promises to deliver light safe
electrical energy storage in high levels whatsoever. Its all a set of
****ing chimeras.

I must tell that to the scientists and researchers beavering away in
various labs around the world, then.

"It's all right lads, TNP says you're wasting your time."

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:12:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

There is no technology around that promises to deliver light safe
electrical energy storage in high levels whatsoever. Its all a set of
****ing chimeras.

I must tell that to the scientists and researchers beavering away in
various labs around the world, then.

"It's all right lads, TNP says you're wasting your time."

In many cases its not their time they are wasting: its your money.

I


Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...


Well...

One day perhaps the perficke electrical storage system may be invented..

One day they might see the need for all the power thats going to need
and might just start building the nuclear plants to cope with that
rather than ****ing it away with subbed solar and windymills..

One day they might just perfect a type of prime power engine for
vehicles that perhaps burns, reacts, or converts something that releases
no pollutants and is easy to store and carry like petrol..

One day perhaps but seemingly not too soon;(...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
I


Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...


Well...

One day perhaps the perficke electrical storage system may be invented..

One day they might see the need for all the power thats going to need
and might just start building the nuclear plants to cope with that
rather than ****ing it away with subbed solar and windymills..

One day they might just perfect a type of prime power engine for
vehicles that perhaps burns, reacts, or converts something that releases
no pollutants and is easy to store and carry like petrol..

One day perhaps but seemingly not too soon;(...

Yeahbut, if electrical storage is dramatically improved, renewable energy
sources make more sense, not less.

Tim

In article
,
Tim wrote:
Yeahbut, if electrical storage is dramatically improved, renewable energy
sources make more sense, not less.

The holy grail. Light, compact and reasonably priced batteries. 'They've'
spent an awful lot looking for such a thing. Yet a car with a normal
engine still uses a lead acid type hardly changed in over 100 years.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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

In article
nal-september.org, Tim scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
I


Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...


Well...

One day perhaps the perficke electrical storage system may be invented..

One day they might see the need for all the power thats going to need
and might just start building the nuclear plants to cope with that
rather than ****ing it away with subbed solar and windymills..

One day they might just perfect a type of prime power engine for
vehicles that perhaps burns, reacts, or converts something that releases
no pollutants and is easy to store and carry like petrol..

One day perhaps but seemingly not too soon;(...

Yeahbut, if electrical storage is dramatically improved, renewable energy
sources make more sense, not less.

Tim

Do you seriously think that renewables alone can power the motor
transport needs of the country?.

Or even go someway to achieve that?...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article
nal-september.org, Tim scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
I


Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...


Well...

One day perhaps the perficke electrical storage system may be invented..

One day they might see the need for all the power thats going to need
and might just start building the nuclear plants to cope with that
rather than ****ing it away with subbed solar and windymills..

One day they might just perfect a type of prime power engine for
vehicles that perhaps burns, reacts, or converts something that releases
no pollutants and is easy to store and carry like petrol..

One day perhaps but seemingly not too soon;(...

Yeahbut, if electrical storage is dramatically improved, renewable energy
sources make more sense, not less.

Tim

Do you seriously think that renewables alone can power the motor
transport needs of the country?.

Or even go someway to achieve that?...

No, do you? I didn't say or imply that. Go back and read the thread in the
right order.

Tim

In article
rnal-september.org, Tim scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article
nal-september.org, Tim scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
I


Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...


Well...

One day perhaps the perficke electrical storage system may be invented..

One day they might see the need for all the power thats going to need
and might just start building the nuclear plants to cope with that
rather than ****ing it away with subbed solar and windymills..

One day they might just perfect a type of prime power engine for
vehicles that perhaps burns, reacts, or converts something that releases
no pollutants and is easy to store and carry like petrol..

One day perhaps but seemingly not too soon;(...

Yeahbut, if electrical storage is dramatically improved, renewable energy
sources make more sense, not less.

Tim

Do you seriously think that renewables alone can power the motor
transport needs of the country?.

Or even go someway to achieve that?...

No, do you? I didn't say or imply that. Go back and read the thread in the
right order.

Tim

I rather doubt if anyone's given a thought to how much energy it would
take to power UK transport needs. A damm sight more then what
windymill's could produce...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I rather doubt if anyone's given a thought to how much energy it would
take to power UK transport needs. A damm sight more then what
windymill's could produce...

And, of course, if there was a big swing to electric powered cars, HMG
would soon find a way of replacing the lost taxes from petrol etc sales.

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I rather doubt if anyone's given a thought to how much energy it would
take to power UK transport needs. A damm sight more then what
windymill's could produce...

And, of course, if there was a big swing to electric powered cars, HMG
would soon find a way of replacing the lost taxes from petrol etc sales.


Absolutely;(....
--
Tony Sayer