F1technical.net

Why are people always bringing up the same lousy argument about the electricity coming from coal? We are moving towards green electricity, that is electricity generated by wind, water and off course nuclear power, heck, there are even people that work on harvesting a mans footsteps! The houses become more and more self sustainable and well isolated cutting their energy requirements too. There are mobile phones with sunpanels and generators in them making their way to the market....the changes are everywhere.

Sweden produces over 40% of its electricity from water and some 40% come from nuclear reactors. France is quite good too. Now I know that every country doesn´t have the rivers and lakes that we have here but those countries have something else they can make electricity from in a green way. Sun and wind being two of them. Nuclear power should be increased until other green sources can generate all the electricity the country needs, and they will with time, thats for sure.

Gasoline, diesel and ethanol are more practical choices at the moment but the question here isn´t what´s more practical today but what the future lies in, and that sure isn´t liquid fuels. NNobody is saying that those

Jersey Tom wrote:Suppose we switched the world over to electric cars tomorrow. Where's all the electricity coming from? The grid. Just going to burn more coal, more oil, more gas, or more nuclear energy. How "clean" or "environmentally friendly" nuclear power is, is a subject of debate. Otherwise, you're still burning hydrocarbons to get energy... and you're ADDING a step or two in the process which is inherently (by thermodynamics) less efficient than just going straight from chemical power to shaft power. Instead, you're going Chemical -> Shaft -> Electrical -> Shaft.

I believe you are comparing apples and bananas there. Stationary power generation has an efficiency of up to 60% in the best of class fossil fired power stations. The centralizing aspect even allows for things as process heat utilization, CO2 quenching into used oil fields, safe depositing of sulfur and traces of natural radioactivity in fossil fuels.

ICE powered cars have efficiencies of 20-25%. This means that electric cars are still cleaner than ICE cars by a large margin. It makes a compelling argument for plug in hybrids in urbane use.

Jersey Tom wrote:

segedunum wrote:As for electric development, I see a lot of people covering their ears and telling us all it will never be good enough. However, many people told us that diesel engines would never be good enough to replace petrol several years ago. The technical obstacles to bringing an electric system that is on a par with current engines are quite large, but the advantages in being able to achieve it are undeniable.

Just don't agree with you. I don't see any advantage in electric vehicles. Waste of time.

Suppose we switched the world over to electric cars tomorrow. Where's all the electricity coming from? The grid. Just going to burn more coal, more oil, more gas, or more nuclear energy. How "clean" or "environmentally friendly" nuclear power is, is a subject of debate. Otherwise, you're still burning hydrocarbons to get energy... and you're ADDING a step or two in the process which is inherently (by thermodynamics) less efficient than just going straight from chemical power to shaft power. Instead, you're going Chemical -> Shaft -> Electrical -> Shaft.

Plus, there's the whole supply chain and logistics aspect that people seem to forget about. The entire world's transportation system is geared toward liquid fuels. Hundreds of thousands of liquid fuel stations, tankers, distribution networks, etc. Can you imagine the cost, fabrication, demolition, and construction that would be required to convert that ALL over to electric? Something like 120,000 gas stations in the US alone. Not to mention 250 million registered passenger vehicles in the US... the cost to scrap all those out or convert them over is non-trivial.

Gasoline, diesel, and ethanol.. all being liquid fuels, are at least a little more practical in terms of replacement.

Sorry Jt but your comments sound exactly the same as what people said in the 1920s when you could only buy benzine in chemists and most people rode horses or went on the railways. The difference then was it was petrol they were talking about. The change will be gradual starting with hybrids. It will result in full electric however, it is inevitable. Of course the American Empire will collapse first of that there can be no doubt. Their ideas on transport and the environment are so simple minded it must be obvious to everyone else now.

Jersey Tom wrote:Just don't agree with you. I don't see any advantage in electric vehicles. Waste of time.

Reduced noise, torque at 0RPM and no loss, better performance, no clutch, the efficiency of decoupling or removal of the ICE in a hybrid system so it isn't always loaded, the ability to introduce more advanced CVT transmission systems..... The advantages of having an electric motor in the powertrain have been known about for some time, which is why diesel electric has been widely used. The only pitfall has been applying the technology right to the automotive industry and eventually getting electrical efficiency to a point where the ICE can be removed.

Suppose we switched the world over to electric cars tomorrow. Where's all the electricity coming from? The grid. Just going to burn more coal, more oil, more gas, or more nuclear energy.

In contrast, we burn less fuel and waste less of it than putting our right foot down in our cars. It will also herald an era where we look at efficient production of electricity outside of the normal grid itself because there will be demand.

I'm afraid it is not an A = B situation, where we trade something with something equal.

How "clean" or "environmentally friendly" nuclear power is, is a subject of debate.

It's not a subject of debate. It is cleaner, but people get hung up on radioactivity. We also need to create enough demand so that efficient electricity production outside of the grid can happen. For this to happen the ICE needs to die and we need to look forwards, because that isn't going to be done with it.

Otherwise, you're still burning hydrocarbons to get energy...

That's not the point. The point is that when you burn those hydrocarbons you want to waste a lot less of the energy that comes out. In ICE systems the majority of the energy is wasted, and when you multiply that many millions of times over the number of vehicles out there the wastage of fossil fuels in vehicles is shocking. WhiteBlue has mentioned the efficiency savings of centralisation.

...and you're ADDING a step or two in the process which is inherently (by thermodynamics) less efficient than just going straight from chemical power to shaft power. Instead, you're going Chemical -> Shaft -> Electrical -> Shaft.

This is a common misconception, sometimes deliberately bandied about. The advantages and efficiencies gained from decoupling the ICE from the power required is well known. When you press your right foot to get RPM to gain torque and power the vast majority of that energy is simply wasted. Probably not even a quarter of it is used. It is possible to apply the power you need whilst loading any ICE engine in the sequence far less.

Plus, there's the whole supply chain and logistics aspect that people seem to forget about. The entire world's transportation system is geared toward liquid fuels.

And?

Hundreds of thousands of liquid fuel stations, tankers, distribution networks, etc. Can you imagine the cost, fabrication, demolition, and construction that would be required to convert that ALL over to electric? Something like 120,000 gas stations in the US alone. Not to mention 250 million registered passenger vehicles in the US... the cost to scrap all those out or convert them over is non-trivial.

You're not impressing with this "Oh, my God!" scenario. As with all things, this will be a gradual process where things get replaced with churn and demand is fueled. You're not going to go out and replace 250 million vehicles tomorrow, all at once. That would just be stupid, wouldn't it? Take a look at what happened at the turn of the last century as the 'horseless carriage' developed.

This is all really a decade or two away as it takes off, but if you're not investing in the future now then you're going to be left in the stone age.

Truck aerodynamics people!

richard_leeds wrote:Could someone help with translation please?

What is a "small block"? Obviously not the number of cylinder, because V8 is "big" by the standards of most mass produced vehicles.

It's a bit worrying that GM are trumpeting investment in technology that bceame common place 20 years ago in the rest of the world, ie aluminum block and direct injection.

Direct injection gasoline commonplace you say? really? where? AFAIK it's only recently that we've seen mass produced vehicles using that technology.

mx_tifosi wrote:Truck aerodynamics people!

Its possible to get a decent Cd on a big car. The Mercedes Boxfish van had a Cd of around 0.19 but this is still way less than a normal sedan.



Beautiful innit?

Tim

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZYXbQCrK7o[/youtube]

Honest question: what are American "Trucks" really used for in the USA?

Other than Pimping and flossing, I don't see people using them for much else down here in the Caribbean.

n smikle wrote:Honest question: what are American "Trucks" really used for in the USA? Other than Pimping and flossing, I don't see people using them for much else down here in the Caribbean.

I haul dirtbikes and atvs with mine. I also tow cars with it and haul dirt for my yard other than that it sits.

n smikle wrote:Honest question: what are American "Trucks" really used for in the USA?

Other than Pimping and flossing, I don't see people using them for much else down here in the Caribbean.

I've used mine to move all my worldly possessions 9 times in the past 4 years. Twice out and back from California. (military and surviving in a crappy economy/job market) Now it's my daily driver and I hate seeing 18mpg out of it. That's why I'm saving every penny I can to buy me a VW Jetta TDI. Can't begin to describe just how impressed with the build quality of that car is, and the mileage is insane for how much giddyup it has. Have a friend with one and I was blown away with how good the doors shut. Nice solid feeling. Then again, that's German cars for you. Haven't met a German car that wasn't assembled with out of this world quality. Efficient bastards they are. (I know it's built in Mexico, but it was designed by them after all.) I hope to see north of 40mpg out of it.

Now if only I can save up the money and have a steady job to pay the car note! After I get my new diesel I'm planning on building a turbo 4.8 for my truck and use it as a plaything. Something to do big smoky donuts in and go hunting at red lights for the odd CrapStang. Nothing beats the LS family GM small blocks for ease of use, cost, fuel efficiency, cost effectiveness, and shadetree mechanicing. That engine is by far the best V8 anywhere in the world on those metrics, the LS7.R won an international award for it's design and that's trickled back into the everyday streetcar. I'd put it up against any other engine up to and over 8 cylinders any day.

I think trucks are pretty aero efficient for what they are. A brick. Can't get any worse shape to design for than that. I run with a full tonneau cover on my truck and it's seemed to help around town, but I only drive 14 miles to and from work everyday in a kinda small town. So I'm not really getting what I need to out of it and now that I've used it alot, 155k miles in 6 years, it's becoming a hassle to fill it up. I use about 3/4 of a 26 gallon tank every two weeks. Buddy with the TDI Jetta fills up once a week with a 13 gallon or so tank but he drives about 30 miles one way everyday. I think if I ran with the bed uncovered I'd get better on the freeway, based on my very unscientific testing, but then I'd expose my toolbox, my spare, and my full jack to the elements and thieves. Need the full jack to get it off the ground because no bottlejack will fit under a lowered truck. I'm sure that the added weight of all that stuff impacts my mileage but it's a necessary evil, I can't drive without those things in the bed.

I don't know the answer but I sure wish diesel was more common even though you get less diesel out of a barrel of oil. And all electric would be cool, the batteries required are a massive problem though. No one that has a small business can afford to have such low range and a hybrid isn't much better I don't think. The up front cost is so high, repairs are so high, that I think it scares away alot of people. I'd go all electric if I could get 200+ miles on a charge and my apartments would let me run an extension cord out to the parking lot. I'd not want to pay that light bill though.

I use mine to haul firewood and a push mower about every weekend it's not raining

Our two trucks (one anemic F350 5.4L gasser and a brand new shiny Ram2500 6.7L Cummins) at the school are used to haul 2 trailers (one race, one enclosed) most of the time for clubs. The rest of the time they are used to move large items for the entertainment department.

The F350 got 7 mpg towing our original race trailer, but it gets up to 12 mpg with the new V-nose enclosed one. That 7 mpg really hurt driving from Buffalo to Rapid City, SD a few years ago. Not sure how much of a difference active aero in a grill would do, but every little bit on a drive like that matters.

WhiteBlue wrote: ICE powered cars have efficiencies of 20-25%. This means that electric cars are still cleaner than ICE cars by a large margin. It makes a compelling argument for plug in hybrids in urbane use.

Exactly. The problem in the US is that there are a lot of non-urban applications. As someone else said, one state is the size of an average country in Europe and we travel between them regularly. So electric cars are a great idea in New York, LA, etc. but not practical for people who travel frequently.

I am not a fan of hybrid's at all. A well designed car with start/stopp technology, small turbo DI gasoline or turbo diesel, and an aerodynamic body would have better highway fuel economy and similar city fuel economy.

One of the best SAE presentations I went to in a while was called "What if the prius wasn't a hybrid?".

http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDeta ... 10-01-0834

It's worth a look for all the parallel hybrid lovers.

Series hybrids (such as the Chevy Volt) make much more sense because they eliminate the need for throttling the engine and allow it to operate in the most efficient manner: at its point of best brake specific fuel consumption and under a constant speed.