<strong>It's a wonder people still get sucked in by such simple trolls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
**** you. I'm not trolling. I just don't believe it. So that's my opinion and as a member I get to express it. If you don't like it then say so or go **** yourself. asshole
****! I'm saying they are not working on anything. I just don't buy it whey Toyota says they'll be 100% hybrid in 10 years. People act like this is some great breakthrough when it's just some marketing yuck shooting of company goals. Shit!
Nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter". We should have had fusion reactors 10 years ago. Why isn't anyone on Mars yet? Where are the flying cars?
If they achieve their goal or not, one reason to be excited is that in the attempt to achieve their goal there will be advances in fuel efficiency. The only way I see there being zero advances is if the goal is false in the first place.
<strong>****! I'm saying they are not working on anything. I just don't buy it whey Toyota says they'll be 100% hybrid in 10 years. People act like this is some great breakthrough when it's just some marketing yuck shooting of company goals. Shit!
Nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter". We should have had fusion reactors 10 years ago. Why isn't anyone on Mars yet? Where are the flying cars?</strong><hr></blockquote>
hahahahahah
this is hilarious. you sound dense enough to be a native to texas...
the difference between your terrible examples and the one we are discussing is that no one has ever gone to mars, or made flying cars, etc. on the other hand, honda and toyota ALREADY HAVE HYBRIDS! making more isnt exactly difficult since IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. it's merely a matter of making more. in the automotive industry, it's not difficult to change models within a few years. every car company changes their current lineup every few years, ie the new Acura RSX is a whole new model compared to the older Integra--they have completely different engines in them. in the same way, it's not difficult to change to hybrid technology. they could do it in a year if they wanted to, so 8-10 years ain't a difficult possibility...
oh yeah...IT IS GOOD TO HAVE GOALS. YOU CANNOT MAKE PROGRESS WITHOUT THEM. every company has marks they have to shoot for. EVERY COMPANY. do you get it?? man, are you 10 years old or somethin? this better be a joke...
Whatever. I'm all for fuel cell cars and hybrids. I own a Civic now and started a topic on MPG. I don't know why the trolls (the real ones) are trying to paint me as some Big Oil protectionist. I just flat out deny that Toyota can make it as a hybrid only manufacture. Maybe in 10 years things will be every different but I doubt it. If they make it more power to them.
<strong>Nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter". We should have had fusion reactors 10 years ago. Why isn't anyone on Mars yet? Where are the flying cars?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nuclear power is cheaper until they factor in the decommisioning costs, which most other power sources don't add to the bill, along with waste disposal. I have a distinct feeling that statement likely comes from the 1950s when people really didn't have much insight into nuclear fuels.
We have fusion reactors already they just aren't viable for commercial use yet.
Because nobody really wants to spend 6 months going there and 6 months coming back. It's a logistical nightmare although if you really wanted to it's doable.
They're around they are just both very expensive and restricted in use.
The difference between all of those examples and hybrid cars is there isn't the necessity to change behind any of them. We don't need to go to Mars ye or fly around in cars. We must stem fossil fuel use though.
The simple fact is these announcements are important whether you believe them or not. It puts pressures on other sectors and companies.
the difference between your terrible examples and the one we are discussing is that no one has ever gone to mars, or made flying cars, etc. on the other hand, honda and toyota ALREADY HAVE HYBRIDS! making more isnt exactly difficult since IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE....</strong><hr></blockquote>
We ALREADY HAVE NUCLEAR POWER but so what? Lots of things changed since they built the first reactors. Too cheap to meter was what nuclear fission was supposed to give us. Never mind fusion. No new nuclear plants are being built in the U.S. today.
You don't have a crystal ball. Being in favor of technological progress isn't the same thing as saying that Toyota will achieve it's goals or that it's goals will even be the same 10 years from now. Talk about dense.
We ALREADY HAVE NUCLEAR POWER but so what? Lots of things changed since they built the first reactors. Too cheap to meter was what nuclear fission was supposed to give us. Never mind fusion. No new nuclear plants are being built in the U.S. today.
You don't have a crystal ball. Being in favor of technological progress isn't the same thing as saying that Toyota will achieve it's goals or that it's goals will even be the same 10 years from now. Talk about dense.
you can NOT compare nuclear power to hybrid technology. hybrids are readily available and embraced by public use. nuclear technology is not. it is both not available and it's feared by the general public. hybrid technology has already been proven to work, and work well. it is already placed deeply into automotive techniques of the modern era.
my point is that innovation is the way of progress. hybrid technology is the current innovation, which will lead to newer and better ideas.
also, do you realize how fast our technology has progressed in the past 100 years? it's exponential in terms of progress. 10 years is nothing, especially considering we're dealing with technology that already exists. it will take nothing at all to make this a reality.
<strong>How close are we to the limits of efficiency in an internal combustion engine? I think the most practical answer to clean cars will still be to carry the generator around with you. We like vehicles with autonomy, especially in America.
I read somewhere that you can get dramatic improvements in efficiency but keeping a steady RPM. With an electric motor to provide torque under low speed loads, a CVT to minimize RPM changes, regenerative braking, direct fuel injection, and some other neat combustion tricks, we may have internal combustion engined for a while yet. What about bio-diesel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Standard internal comustion engine runs between 8 - 13% efficient. How much that has progressed in the past 5 years I don't know but I doubt a lot. That's solely for an internal combustion engine. Hybrid cars do a significantly better job on the efficiency front.
Bio-diesel just trades one problem for others. For a more formal answer though both the CSIRO and the US DoE did a study into operating bus fleets on alternative fuels. In the CSIRO study pure bio-diesel came in second last (out of 14 I think). In the DoE study it didn't fair a great deal better. There are just better options available.
Standard internal comustion engine runs between 8 - 13% efficient. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
We could argue about what "standard" is but according the October issue of Scientific American on page 67 in the article on Fuel Cell cars the IC engine is said to be "up to 30% efficient".
i think scott's problem wasn't with the idea, just the reaction of people as if Honda's actually done something.
in this case i agree. it's marketing talk. it'll be great if it pans out, but as of yet nothing's really happened.
i think (correct me if i'm wrong) that scott is thinking perhaps we should save this reaction for when this has actually happened, as opposed to when Honda says they're going to do something.
Who's next? Honda, Chevy, Ford? They also state that there will have a fuel cell mass produced car by 2010. This is good news for the environment and pollution levels in our big cities. Except for the SUV explosion of the 90s, there has been a trend for smaller and more fuel efficient cars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope not chevy, or anyone else. Toyota will reverse their direction in due time.
<strong>since all oil will run out in about 40 years, i suspect all car companies will have hybrids and alternative autos coming out over the next 20 years....i will most likely live to see a day will NO gasoline cars left in the world (except museum and show pieces)....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are not an economics major, are you?
What happens when supply gets low? Huh? Well, prices go up. But, there WILL BE people richer than you who both WANT and CAN AFFORD gas for their cars. And they'll pay for it. And, oil will never be depleted because of SIMPLE ECONOMICS.
We could argue about what "standard" is but according the October issue of Scientific American on page 67 in the article on Fuel Cell cars the IC engine is said to be "up to 30% efficient".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whenever anything says "up to x%" you should never trust it.
That said the difficulty with the internal combustion engines is you can't actually implement a lot of the changes that increase efficiency in an engine without substantially increasing costs. Many of the improvements are dangerous or increase wear and aren't viable for road cars.
Those figures I quoted are around 5 years old now but many cars being sold today wouldn't have substantially changed engines from 5 years ago either.
Lifting engine efficiency to about 20% in the past 5 years using current technology wouldn't be too difficult but only the newest and top-line cars would have those sorts of numbers. Once you want to get to around the 25% figure you are looking at some very costly engine designs integrated with some advanced electronic control systems that most cars simply don't have.
You also have to consider those are "new" numbers. As the engine ages the efficiency drops due to wear and tear.
The internal combustion engine really isn't all that spectacular in terms of efficiency nor will it ever have any hopes of becoming so.
The electricity generation industry learnt long ago if you add hybridisation you can actually achieve some decent efficiency numbers and now the car companies are looking towards recouping some of the lost energy the same way.
What happens when supply gets low? Huh? Well, prices go up. But, there WILL BE people richer than you who both WANT and CAN AFFORD gas for their cars. And they'll pay for it. And, oil will never be depleted because of SIMPLE ECONOMICS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No because what will happen is countries simply ban its use in newly manufactured cars after a point. I expect that will come somewhere around 2020 if not before in some places like Europe and possibly Japan.
Older cars will keep using it but gradually it will fade away before it is ultimately banned as a fuel source for cars.
Comments
<strong>It's a wonder people still get sucked in by such simple trolls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
**** you. I'm not trolling. I just don't believe it. So that's my opinion and as a member I get to express it. If you don't like it then say so or go **** yourself. asshole
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
*snicker*
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
Nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter". We should have had fusion reactors 10 years ago. Why isn't anyone on Mars yet? Where are the flying cars?
If they achieve their goal or not, one reason to be excited is that in the attempt to achieve their goal there will be advances in fuel efficiency. The only way I see there being zero advances is if the goal is false in the first place.
we don't need flying cars cause we put freakin' roads everywhere
fusion? like what happens in the sun?? yeah, i want that in my neighborhood.....
but oil is finite (and the end is sooner, not later) so we WILL see an answer for this....g
ps....toyota (and honda) may go all hybrid because they will sell....most people who drive hybrids love them--
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/02q3/civic-hybrid/2003-civic-hy-1.html"; target="_blank">review</a>
ps...i likes talkin' to trolls, they is so cute and cuddily.....
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>****! I'm saying they are not working on anything. I just don't buy it whey Toyota says they'll be 100% hybrid in 10 years. People act like this is some great breakthrough when it's just some marketing yuck shooting of company goals. Shit!
Nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter". We should have had fusion reactors 10 years ago. Why isn't anyone on Mars yet? Where are the flying cars?</strong><hr></blockquote>
hahahahahah
this is hilarious. you sound dense enough to be a native to texas...
the difference between your terrible examples and the one we are discussing is that no one has ever gone to mars, or made flying cars, etc. on the other hand, honda and toyota ALREADY HAVE HYBRIDS! making more isnt exactly difficult since IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. it's merely a matter of making more. in the automotive industry, it's not difficult to change models within a few years. every car company changes their current lineup every few years, ie the new Acura RSX is a whole new model compared to the older Integra--they have completely different engines in them. in the same way, it's not difficult to change to hybrid technology. they could do it in a year if they wanted to, so 8-10 years ain't a difficult possibility...
oh yeah...IT IS GOOD TO HAVE GOALS. YOU CANNOT MAKE PROGRESS WITHOUT THEM. every company has marks they have to shoot for. EVERY COMPANY. do you get it?? man, are you 10 years old or somethin? this better be a joke...
<strong>Nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter". We should have had fusion reactors 10 years ago. Why isn't anyone on Mars yet? Where are the flying cars?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nuclear power is cheaper until they factor in the decommisioning costs, which most other power sources don't add to the bill, along with waste disposal. I have a distinct feeling that statement likely comes from the 1950s when people really didn't have much insight into nuclear fuels.
We have fusion reactors already they just aren't viable for commercial use yet.
Because nobody really wants to spend 6 months going there and 6 months coming back. It's a logistical nightmare although if you really wanted to it's doable.
They're around they are just both very expensive and restricted in use.
The difference between all of those examples and hybrid cars is there isn't the necessity to change behind any of them. We don't need to go to Mars ye or fly around in cars. We must stem fossil fuel use though.
The simple fact is these announcements are important whether you believe them or not. It puts pressures on other sectors and companies.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<strong>
the difference between your terrible examples and the one we are discussing is that no one has ever gone to mars, or made flying cars, etc. on the other hand, honda and toyota ALREADY HAVE HYBRIDS! making more isnt exactly difficult since IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE....</strong><hr></blockquote>
We ALREADY HAVE NUCLEAR POWER but so what? Lots of things changed since they built the first reactors. Too cheap to meter was what nuclear fission was supposed to give us. Never mind fusion. No new nuclear plants are being built in the U.S. today.
You don't have a crystal ball. Being in favor of technological progress isn't the same thing as saying that Toyota will achieve it's goals or that it's goals will even be the same 10 years from now. Talk about dense.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
The simple fact is these announcements are important whether you believe them or not. It puts pressures on other sectors and companies.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
thats exactly right. very well said.
<strong>
We ALREADY HAVE NUCLEAR POWER but so what? Lots of things changed since they built the first reactors. Too cheap to meter was what nuclear fission was supposed to give us. Never mind fusion. No new nuclear plants are being built in the U.S. today.
You don't have a crystal ball. Being in favor of technological progress isn't the same thing as saying that Toyota will achieve it's goals or that it's goals will even be the same 10 years from now. Talk about dense.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
you can NOT compare nuclear power to hybrid technology. hybrids are readily available and embraced by public use. nuclear technology is not. it is both not available and it's feared by the general public. hybrid technology has already been proven to work, and work well. it is already placed deeply into automotive techniques of the modern era.
my point is that innovation is the way of progress. hybrid technology is the current innovation, which will lead to newer and better ideas.
also, do you realize how fast our technology has progressed in the past 100 years? it's exponential in terms of progress. 10 years is nothing, especially considering we're dealing with technology that already exists. it will take nothing at all to make this a reality.
<strong>How close are we to the limits of efficiency in an internal combustion engine? I think the most practical answer to clean cars will still be to carry the generator around with you. We like vehicles with autonomy, especially in America.
I read somewhere that you can get dramatic improvements in efficiency but keeping a steady RPM. With an electric motor to provide torque under low speed loads, a CVT to minimize RPM changes, regenerative braking, direct fuel injection, and some other neat combustion tricks, we may have internal combustion engined for a while yet. What about bio-diesel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Standard internal comustion engine runs between 8 - 13% efficient. How much that has progressed in the past 5 years I don't know but I doubt a lot. That's solely for an internal combustion engine. Hybrid cars do a significantly better job on the efficiency front.
Bio-diesel just trades one problem for others. For a more formal answer though both the CSIRO and the US DoE did a study into operating bus fleets on alternative fuels. In the CSIRO study pure bio-diesel came in second last (out of 14 I think). In the DoE study it didn't fair a great deal better. There are just better options available.
<strong>
Standard internal comustion engine runs between 8 - 13% efficient. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
We could argue about what "standard" is but according the October issue of Scientific American on page 67 in the article on Fuel Cell cars the IC engine is said to be "up to 30% efficient".
in this case i agree. it's marketing talk. it'll be great if it pans out, but as of yet nothing's really happened.
i think (correct me if i'm wrong) that scott is thinking perhaps we should save this reaction for when this has actually happened, as opposed to when Honda says they're going to do something.
<strong><a href="http://www.auto.com/industry/iwird25_20021025.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.auto.com/industry/iwird25_20021025.htm</a>;
Who's next? Honda, Chevy, Ford? They also state that there will have a fuel cell mass produced car by 2010. This is good news for the environment and pollution levels in our big cities. Except for the SUV explosion of the 90s, there has been a trend for smaller and more fuel efficient cars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope not chevy, or anyone else. Toyota will reverse their direction in due time.
<strong>since all oil will run out in about 40 years, i suspect all car companies will have hybrids and alternative autos coming out over the next 20 years....i will most likely live to see a day will NO gasoline cars left in the world (except museum and show pieces)....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are not an economics major, are you?
What happens when supply gets low? Huh? Well, prices go up. But, there WILL BE people richer than you who both WANT and CAN AFFORD gas for their cars. And they'll pay for it. And, oil will never be depleted because of SIMPLE ECONOMICS.
<strong>
We could argue about what "standard" is but according the October issue of Scientific American on page 67 in the article on Fuel Cell cars the IC engine is said to be "up to 30% efficient".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whenever anything says "up to x%" you should never trust it.
That said the difficulty with the internal combustion engines is you can't actually implement a lot of the changes that increase efficiency in an engine without substantially increasing costs. Many of the improvements are dangerous or increase wear and aren't viable for road cars.
Those figures I quoted are around 5 years old now but many cars being sold today wouldn't have substantially changed engines from 5 years ago either.
Lifting engine efficiency to about 20% in the past 5 years using current technology wouldn't be too difficult but only the newest and top-line cars would have those sorts of numbers. Once you want to get to around the 25% figure you are looking at some very costly engine designs integrated with some advanced electronic control systems that most cars simply don't have.
You also have to consider those are "new" numbers. As the engine ages the efficiency drops due to wear and tear.
The internal combustion engine really isn't all that spectacular in terms of efficiency nor will it ever have any hopes of becoming so.
The electricity generation industry learnt long ago if you add hybridisation you can actually achieve some decent efficiency numbers and now the car companies are looking towards recouping some of the lost energy the same way.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<strong>
What happens when supply gets low? Huh? Well, prices go up. But, there WILL BE people richer than you who both WANT and CAN AFFORD gas for their cars. And they'll pay for it. And, oil will never be depleted because of SIMPLE ECONOMICS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No because what will happen is countries simply ban its use in newly manufactured cars after a point. I expect that will come somewhere around 2020 if not before in some places like Europe and possibly Japan.
Older cars will keep using it but gradually it will fade away before it is ultimately banned as a fuel source for cars.